PARVEZ KHAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 3-3-2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has dismissed the appellant's Writ Petition No. 15052/2008. The facts in short are these. The appellant's father Sultan Khan died on 21-6-2005 while serving in the Police Department of the State Government. Immediately thereafter the appellant applied for his compassionate appointment. The respondents processed his application and found him eligible for appointment. They, therefore, referred the matter to the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority also found the appellant eligible for appointment and sent his record for police verification. It is stated that according to the police verification report the appellant was found involved in two criminal cases. In the first case he was prosecuted for offences under Sections 323, 324, 325, 294 and 506-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and in the second case he was prosecuted for offences under Sections 452, 394 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code. The Superintendent of Police (respondent No. 4) by order dated 26-9-2007 held that on character verification of the appellant he is not found suitable for Government service and closed his case. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 15052/2008 and submitted that in the first case he was acquitted of all the charges vide judgment dated 31-1-2007 passed in Criminal Case No. 3014/2007 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Damoh, and in the second case also he was acquitted because the offences were compounded before the Competent Court. But the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that as in the second case the matter was compromised, the acquittal of appellant was not clear. The learned Judge also held that because of the involvement of appellant in criminal offences, the decision of respondents in closing his case for compassionate appointment cannot be said as arbitrary.

(2.) It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the order dated 26-9-2007 dismissing the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment does not contain any reasons and, therefore, it deserves to be quashed on this ground alone. It has also been argued that the learned Judge committed an illegality in holding that as the appellant was discharged of the offences on the basis of compromise, his acquittal was not clear. The learned Deputy Advocate General, on the other hand, justified the action of respondents as well as the order passed in the writ petition.

(3.) The Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P., 2011 AIR(SC) 2903 has held that the object of the verification of the character and antecedents of Government servants before their first appointment is to ensure that the character of a Government servant for a direct recruitment is such as to render him suitable in all respects for employment in the service or post to which he is to be appointed and it would be a duty of the Appointing Authority to satisfy itself on this point.