PAPPU YADAV Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dtd. 13/1/2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2 terminating the services of the petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, are that after the death of petitioner's father, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground on the post of Peon/Coolie vide order dtd. 19/4/2010 (Annexure P/3) under the office of respondents No. 2 and 3. However, on 20/5/2016 respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice (Annexure P/4) to the petitioner to explain as to why he furnished wrong information in his application for compassionate appointment and suppressed the material fact that his mother is also a government servant. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the said notice with relevant documents on 1/6/2016. Thereafter, respondent No.2 constituted a four-members enquiry committee to submit report whether the petitioner had given wrong information/declaration for getting compassionate appointment. The said enquiry committing without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, proceeded of its own and submitted a report before respondent No.2 which led to passing of the impugned order dtd. 13/1/2017 terminating the services of the petitioner from the regular post of Peon/Coolie. Thereafter, the petitioner made a detailed representation on 27/1/2017 which has not yet been decided. Hence this petition for the following reliefs:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dtd. 13/1/2017 passed by respondent No.2 terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Peon/Coolie after a lapse of seven years of his appointment, is illegal, arbitrary and against the policy of the State Government, hence liable to be set aside. The petitioner had not suppressed the fact that his mother Smt. Pramila Bai Yadav was also working on the post of Peon/Coolie while his father Late Pardeshi Yadav was posted and working as Peon, who died on 19/6/2009. Much prior to this, on 30/3/1997 a written mutual divorce was executed by Yadav Samaj between Pardeshi Yadav and Smt. Pramila Bai Yadav whereby she was separated from them. The petitioner, who was 19 years of age at that time, started living with his father and therefore, he mentioned the facts in his application for compassionate appointment, which were within his knowledge as his mother was living separately. This apart, it is worthwhile to mention here that there are some employees appointed as Peon in Public Health Department on compassionate ground after the death of their father despite their mothers working in the same department. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order being bad in law is liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Bhupinder Pal Singh Vs. Director General of Civil Aviation, 2003 CJ (SC) 142 and the judgment dtd. 2/5/2022 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3574/2022 in the matter of Pawan Kumar Vs. UOI and another.