Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2019) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15347
(@ Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 4654 of 2013)
Decided on: 11.02.2019
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. Karan Bharihoke, Adv., Mr. B.D. Das, Adv., Mr. Kaushal Narayan Mishra, Adv., Mr. Siddhant Sharma, Adv., Ms. Navkiran Bolay, Adv., Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, AOR,
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv., Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar, Adv., Mr. Anis Ahmed Khan, AOR
Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Rule 12.21 – Compassionate appointment on bogus matriculation certificate – Subsequently discharged on the ground of fabrication in matriculation certificate – Held, appointment of the plaintiff/son after the death of his father on compassionate grounds was undeserving – Suit for declaration for entitlement of benefit and privileges of recruitment in Police Force in place of father dismissed.
(Para 4, 14,15)
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2011 in Regular Second Appeal NO. 2458 of 1988 passed by the High Court by which the appeal was dismissed.
4. A suit was filed by Shri Jasbir Singh (the respondent herein) for declaration that he is entitled to benefit and privileges of recruitment in Police Force in place of Shri Wattan Singh, Police Constable (the father of the respondent) who died on 05.08.1983.
5. It is a case of the respondent that he was granted exemption from the educational qualification and a direction was issued to give him an appointment as a Constable on compassionate grounds. During the process, it was revealed that the plaintiff (respondent herein) was given appointment by order dated 06.11.1981 as Constable and subsequently he was discharged from service w.e.f. 31.12.1983 by the SSP, Amritsar under Rule 12.21 of Punjab Police Rules for producing bogus certificate of Matriculation. Due to the aforesaid, the plaintiff could not be given any appointment.
6. A civil suit (bearing No. 27 of 1985) was filed before Trial Court. The Trial Court by its order dated 02.04.1987 dismissed the suit.
7. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff (respondent herein) filed an appeal (being Civil Appeal No. 95 of 1987) before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court reversed the decision of the Trial Court and granted a decree. The Appellate Court took the view that the order of discharge in which the plaintiff was held “unlikely to prove an efficient police officer” could not come in his way in a fresh appointment.
8. The said judgment was also affirmed by the High Court in Regular Second Appeal filed by the State of Punjab. The High Court, in its judgment, noted that the plaintiff was recruited as a Constable in Amritsar and his services were terminated. The High Court also opined that the reason for refusing the employment on compassionate grounds was not sufficient.
9. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the State is before us in this appeal.
10. Learned counsel for the State submits that the plaintiff (respondent herein) was discharged on the allegation of fabrication of the certificate. In view of the nature of the allegation for which he was discharged, he was not a fit person to be given appointment and no error was committed by the Authorities in not giving him any appointment. He further submits that the appointment was given with the condition “if found medically fit and that nothing politically or otherwise found against him”. He was found medically fit but subsequent facts which have come into the notice were sufficient for denying the appointment.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent refuted the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and supports the judgment and order passed by the High Court and submit that he was already granted exemption from educational qualification and he could have very well been given appointment. The First Appellate Court did not commit any error in decreeing the suit in his favour.
12. He further submits that the respondent died in 2006 and his legal heirs were brought on record.
13. We have heard submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
14. It appears that though the respondent was enlisted as a Constable and subsequently discharged on the ground of fabrication in his matriculation certificate, the appointment of the plaintiff (the respondent herein) after the death of his father on compassionate grounds was undeserving. We are of the view that there were sufficient reasons for the respondent-State for not giving appointment to the plaintiff on compassionate grounds. The First Appellate Court committed error in decreeing the suit without considering the aforesaid fact.
15. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that the Trial Court has looked into the enquiry file and came to the conclusion that there was a reason for non-appointment of the plaintiff. There was a letter of Superintendent of Police bringing all these facts into the notice when the question of compassionate appointment was under process.
16. We, thus, find that there was a sufficient reason with the State Authorities to not to give compassionate appointment. The High Court without adverting to the relevant facts dismissed the Regular Second Appeal filed by the State.
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, the civil appeal is allowed and the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed.
Appeal allowed.
********