Compassionate appointment termination requires reasoned assessment of fitness post-acquittal; non-disclosure of matrimonial case insufficient for Class-IV post.

ORDER

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner challenging the communication dated 02/06/2018, the termination order dated 22/06/2018, and the subsequent communications dated 18/04/2019. By these impugned orders, the respondents have declared the petitioner unfit for government service and terminated his compassionate appointment. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to quash the said orders and direct the respondents to reinstate him on the post of Peon with all consequential benefits.

Facts of the Case

2. The petitioner’s father, working as a Peon with the respondent Department, expired in harness on 29/09/2017. Following the state government's policy, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. The Joint Director, Veterinary Services, appointed the petitioner as a Peon on a probationary basis vide order dated 15/11/2017, subject to the submission of necessary information in the requisite format.

3. On 05/12/2017, the petitioner submitted the verification form to the Superintendent of Police, Mandsaur, answering “No” to the queries regarding pending criminal cases. However, a criminal complaint under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC (Crime No. 54/2014)

had been lodged against him by his first wife due to marital discord. 4. The parties reached a compromise, and the petitioner was acquitted of all charges vide order dated 20/03/2018. Despite the acquittal, the Inspector General of Police issued a communication dated 02/06/2018 declaring the petitioner unfit for service due to the non-disclosure of the criminal case. Acting upon this, the respondents terminated the petitioner's services on 22/06/2018.

5. The petitioner represented against the termination on 29/06/2018, citing his acquittal. The Deputy Director sought guidance from the Inspector General of Police on 02/07/2018 and sent a reminder on 07/09/2018. However, the Inspector General, vide letter dated 18/04/2019, maintained the earlier decision, leading to the filing of the present writ petition.

Contentions of the Petitioner

6. The petitioner contends that the termination order is bad in law as it was issued without affording any show-cause notice, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, on the date the termination order was passed (22/06/2018), the petitioner already stood acquitted of all charges vide the judgment dated 20/03/2018, a fact the authorities failed to consider.

7. It is submitted that the non-disclosure in the verification form was not malafide or intended to misrepresent. The petitioner not being well-versed in law failed to correctly understand the confusing wording of the questions. The criminal case was purely a matrimonial dispute which does not involve moral turpitude.

8. The petitioner further emphasizes that the post in question is a Class-IV position (Peon) in a non-disciplined force. Therefore, the rigorous standards expected of a person serving in a uniformed force are not applicable. The employer ought to have exercised discretion and taken a lenient view considering the clean acquittal and the hardship faced by the deceased employee's family.

Contentions of the Respondents

9. The respondents primarily argue that the petitioner deliberately concealed material information in Clause 2 of his verification form by falsely stating that no criminal case was pending against h