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.

JUDGMENT :

Manju Rani Chauhan, J.

1. Heard Mr. Adarsh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gaurav Bishan, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 as well as Mr. Hare Ram, learned Standing counsel for the State and perused the record.

2. By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 31.05.2023, whereby he has been terminated from service on the ground that, while seeking compassionate appointment following the death of his father in harness on 02.11.1998, he failed to disclose in his application dated 17.05.2000 the material fact that his mother was already employed in government service.

3. Brief facts as stated by the counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner's father, who was serving as an Assistant Teacher in the Junior High School, Toksin Block, District Mursan, District Hathras, passed away while in service on 02.01.1998. He was survived by his wife, one son, and two daughters, as mentioned in paragraph 5, who were all dependent on him.

4. The petitioner filed an application seeking compassionate appointment along with relevant documents pertaining to the family's economic condition, as well as a notarized affidavit of no objection from the family members before the District Basic Education Officer, Hathras. After conducting the necessary enquiry, the officer appointed the petitioner to the post of Junior Clerk on 12.07.2001.

5. The petitioner diligently performed the duties of the said post to the satisfaction of his superior officers and was subsequently promoted to the position of Senior Clerk on a vacant post on 16.10.2006. During this period, no complaints or adverse remarks were recorded against the petitioner.

6. The petitioner was also granted the benefits of the Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) scheme along with the corresponding grade pay, after due verification and full satisfaction of the senior officials of the department.

7. A complaint was lodged by an unidentified individual against the petitioner which contained several vague and unsubstantiated allegations. One of the accusations in the aforesaid complaint was that ambiguous or misleading information had been provided by the petitioner to secure an appointment on compassionate grounds.

8. Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint, an inquiry was conducted against the petitioner on multiple occasions following notice to him. However, without due consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order was passed in an arbitrary and unjust manner.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner as a matter of fact, did not conceal any material fact vide seeking compassionate appointment. He further submits that at that time i.e in the year 2000, when the application for compassionate appointment was given by the petitioner, there was no form prescribed as such which required particular information to be furnished. The petitioner has submitted all the relevant documents like the affidavits regarding no objection of the family members, including a notarized affidavit dated 28.07.2000 given by his mother, wherein it has been mentioned that she is working as an Assistant Teacher in Prathmik Vidhyalay Bahrampur, District- Aligarh. The said affidavit is annexed as Annexure No.1 to the rejoinder affidavit. After due verification of the documents, the petitioner was offered appointment on compassionate ground.

10. Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it cannot be said that the petitioner concealed any material information/fact from the respo