Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Rahul – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges dismissal based on alleged concealment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner argues no concealment occurred; application was transparent. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court finds no fraud; prior judgments support petitioner's claims. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. court emphasizes verification responsibility lies with authorities. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. order quashed; petitioner reinstated with salary arrears. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. writ petition allowed; no costs ordered. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT :
Ajit Kumar, J.
1. Heard Sri Adarsh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.08.2021 whereby petitioner's services have been dispensed with only on the ground that while seeking compassionate appointment for his father dying in harness on 01.02.2008, vide application dated 29.02.2008, he concealed this material fact that his mother was already under Government service.
3. Meeting the grounds raised in the order impugned in this petition, Sri Adarsh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner argue
Compassionate appointments cannot be annulled without proper inquiry, and the absence of a prescribed application format does not imply concealment of material facts.
The appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be terminated based on unsupported allegations of concealment, particularly after valid scrutiny and significant time lapse since the appointment.
Compassionate appointments cannot be cancelled based on non-disclosure of a parent's employment if the applicant was dependent on the deceased and no fraud was committed.
Point of Law : Misconduct literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct. In usual parlance, misconduct means a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, where no discretion i....
Compassionate appointments are exceptions to the merit-based recruitment process and must strictly adhere to established statutory criteria, with no vested rights for applicants.
Cancellation of appointment after 19 years, without following proper disciplinary inquiry procedures, and based on a complaint, was unsustainable.
Fraudulent or illegal appointments, even if continued for a long time, are void ab initio and cannot be justified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
