Allahabad High Court
Anshu Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. ... on 7 August, 2023
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:51897 Court No. - 20 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5523 of 2023 Petitioner :- Anshu Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Irrigation And Water Resource Sectt. Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 4 and learned counsel for opposite party no.5, whose power filed today is taken on record.
2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 25.07.2023 whereby compassionate appointment provided to petitioner earlier on 01.06.2023 has been cancelled.
3. It has been submitted that petitioner is the younger son of deceased Indra Pal who passed away on 06.07.2021 while in service on the post of Helper. It is submitted that petitioner's name along with his mother was indicated in the service book of the deceased as would be evident from a perusal of impugned order itself. It is submitted that subsequent to petitioner's appointment and joining on 01.06.2023 on a Class IV post, opposite party no.5 who is the elder son of deceased Indra Pal gave a complaint indicating that appointment has been procured by petitioner on the basis of forged documents since opposite party no.5 never provided any 'no objection certificate' for appointment of petitioner.
4. It is submitted that a bare perusal of impugned order will make it evident that petitioner's appointment has been cancelled merely on the basis of aforesaid complaint without affording any opportunity of hearing to petitioner. It is further submitted that earlier petitioner's appointment had been cancelled vide order dated 05.06.2023 but impugned order dated 25.07.2023 has been passed in supersession thereof due to which order dated 05.06.2023 lost its relevance and therefore was not challenged. It has been further submitted that impugned order having violated vested rights of petitioner is liable to be quashed.
5. Learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.5 have refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and have specifically drawn attention to Clause 9 of the Appointment letter dated 01.06.2023 to submit that it was a stipulation in the appointment letter itself that if appointment is obtained on the basis of forgery, it would automatically stand cancelled and, therefore, there was no requirement of providing opportunity of hearing to petitioner.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.5 has placed reliance on judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. and another v. Anil Kanwariya [Civil Appeal Nos.5743-5744 of 2021] decided on 17.09.2021 and by this Court in Narendra Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P. and 3 others [WRIT - A No. - 15217 of 2020] to submit that in case where appointment is obtained by misrepresentation or suppression of facts by candidates and appointees, there is no right to continue in service and the employer has a discretion to terminate such services.
7. With regard to aforesaid judgments, it is evident that such judgments pertained to suppression of criminal cases pending against a candidate/appointee. In the present case, there is no allegation against petitioner of having suppressed any criminal antecedent in nature of a public document which does not require proof under the Indian Evidence Act. On the contrary, the impugned order is based on a complaint made by opposite party no.5 to the effect that he did not furnish any 'no objection certificate'. There is a clear distinction between the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for opposite party no.5 and in the present case where allegations of fraud as alleged by opposite party no.5 are required to be proved and to that effect opportunity of hearing was required to be provided by opposite parties to petitioner prior to cancellation of petitioner's appointment since allegations made by opposite party no.5 cannot be taken at face value since it does not conform to evidence which is deemed to be genuine.
8. In view of aforesaid, impugned order dated 25.07.2023 having been passed without adherence to principles of natural justice, is therefore quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari.
9. However, keeping in view the fact that there is no denial of the aspect that both petitioner as well as opposite party no.5 are sons of deceased Indra Pal, concerned authority is granted liberty to consider candidature of both the petitioner as well as opposite party no.5 for compassionate appointment in accordance with law and in accordance with U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 and to offer appointment in case they are found eligible for the same.
10. In view of aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The parties to bear their own costs.
11. Decision with regard to candidature for compassionate appointment shall be made within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the competent authority and reinstatement of petitioner shall be subject to such decision.
Order Date :- 7.8.2023 kvg/-