Mere pendency of a criminal case cannot justify the denial of compassionate appointment, particularly when supported by a valid character certificate from a competent authority.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

1. Heard Shri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner has assailed the order dated 19.12.2023 whereby his claim for compassionate appointment has been deferred only on the ground that there is criminal case pending against him and his claim for compassionate appointment could be reconsidered only after his acquittal in the pending criminal case and another order dated 02.01.2024 whereby the Executive Engineer has expressed view that his character certificate issued by the District Magistrate shall be liable to be considered only after his acquittal in the criminal case as the character certificate itself contained a rider that there was criminal case pending against the petitioner and upon his conviction in the said criminal case, the character certificate would loose its relevance. Copy of the character certificate on the basis of which the impugned orders have come to be passed has been brought on record as annexure No. 14 to the petition.

3. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that in the criminal case in which the petitioner has come to be implicated was only on account old standing enmity between the families and there was no role assigned to the petitioner in the first information report which may have given an impression to the authorities that petitioner would be liable to be held guilty of moral turpitude so as to dis- entitle him for any appointment in government service. It is further argued that there is no criminal history to the credit of the petitioner and in the light of the guidelines laid down in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India 2016 (8) SCC 471 petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment could have been considered, moreso in the circumstances when the District Magistrate has not recalled his character certificate issued to petitioner till date.

4. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the contrary tried to defend the impugned order for the reason assigned therein however, he could not dispute the fact that District Magistrate, Deoria while issuing the character certificate on 24. 07.2023 did not observe anywhere that the character certificate as on that date was meaningless or irrelevant for the purpose for which it was issued.

5. Having heard learned counsel for respective parties and having perused the records I find the only question arising for consideration of this Court is, whether only on the basis of criminal case being registered against the petitioner under certain sections of erstwhile Indian Penal Code, petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment could have been rejected, more especially in the circumstances when there was no criminal history to his credit and the District Magistrate had issued character certificate in his favour.

6. In order to find answer to this above question I am reminded of settled principle regarding the object for incorporation of the rule for compassionate appointment and that is with the purpose to provide immediate succour to the bereaved family. If the appointment is deferred only for flimsy grounds or only on the ground that the employer does not find in its discretion it to be appropriate to issue appointment order and to defer it for a long period to wait till the final outcome of the criminal trial, the very purpose and object to provide compassionate appointment would get defeated. Petitioner's father died on 31.01.2023 while w