ANOOP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsels for the parties, perused the record with the assistance of the learned counsels for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner was working as Deputy Ranger in the Forest Department with fourth respondent, Divisional Director, Social Forestry, Forest Division, Lalitpur. By the instant petition, petitioner is assailing the order dtd. 31/5/2021, passed by third respondent, Divisional Director, Bundelkhand Forest Circle, Jhansi, whereby, the services of the petitioner was terminated for the reason that petitioner had obtained compassionate appointment by suppressing material fact that his mother was an employee receiving salary from the Government.

(3.) The facts, briefly stated, is that petitioner is the son of an ex- employee, Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, who died in harness while working on the post of Forest Guard on 13/10/2002. Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment under U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974(Rules, 1974). The application form was accompanied with an affidavit of his mother stating that she has no objection to the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate basis. Accordingly, petitioner came to be appointed on 31/12/2002, by the Conservator of Forest, Jhansi. Since then, petitioner is performing his duties. It is urged that petitioner was subsequently confirmed, thereafter, on 17/1/2019, petitioner was promoted on the post of Deputy Ranger. On a complaint received through the office of the District Magistrate alleging that petitioner had obtained the appointment suppressing the fact that his mother was working as an Assistant Teacher in a basic school and receiving salary from Government, consequently, a show cause notice dtd. 20/1/2021, came to be issued to the petitioner. Petitioner responded to the notice by submitting reply on 24/1/2021, and a supplementary reply on 16/3/2021. The third respondent on considering the reply passed the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner was not eligible, nor entitled to compassionate appointment as he nor his mother had disclosed that they both were not entitled to compassionate appointment under Rules, 1974.