eng
competition

Text Practice Mode

High Court ki Taiyari

created Mar 10th 2023, 12:15 by 1998Raunak


0


Rating

440 words
3 completed
00:00
As far as the third question with regard to the fact of the suppression and its consequence if any is concerned, even if it is assumed that there is suppression of the fact of appointment of the petitioner on the previous occasion on compassionate basis and the same is found to be established, action could be taken against the petitioner only if the said suppression had the effect of depriving the petitioner from seeking appointment again after resigning from the earlier post, no departmental rule, regulation or by-law is brought to the notice of this Court in this regard, where grant of compassionate appointment after relinquishing or resigning from a post on which compassionate appointment is granted on a previous occasion is prohibited, then how the petitioner can be held guilty of seeking appointment by suppressing the fact, if under law, there is no prohibition in seeking such a compassionate appointment. If anyone having been appointed on one post wants to resign from the said post, there is nothing available on record to indicate that the departmental procedure or circulars prohibits an employee from seeking compassionate appointment to a different posts after resigning from one post. The documents and circulars only prohibits appointment on compassionate ground simultaneously in two different posts at the same time but there is nothing to indicate that after relinquishing one post, the appointment to the another post is prohibited. In the absence of the circulars and procedures of the department prohibiting so, it cannot be held that the suppression of fact is so fatal that it even prevents the petitioner for seeking appointment in a different post to which he is duly qualified for being appointed. Petitioner by answering the said question in the manner as indicated to the effect that no other member of the family has been granted compassionate appointment, that being so, it cannot be construed that petitioner has made a misstatement of the fact or has suppressed any material fact. Considering the material available on record and the reasons as indicated hereinabove, I am of the considered view that in the present case, there is no suppression of fact by the petitioner and is also not established in the departmental enquiry and the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority have held that is charge no. 1 as proved which is based on their own presumptions and assumptions without there being any cogent evidence or material to hold so. Accordingly, it has to be held that the finding recorded with regard to charge no. 1 is neither established from the material available on record and it is a perverse finding.

 

saving score / loading statistics ...