- (1.) D. P. Singh, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THIS petition is directed against an order dated 8-5-2002 by which the services of the petitioner have been dispensed with. The facts as pleaded in the writ petition is that Shri Durg Sah, father of the petitioner was a Police Constable and he died in harness on 24-10-1985 while posted at District Mathura. He was survived by three sons excluding the petitioner and the widow mother. It is admitted in the pleadings that the two elder brothers Chandra Pal and Shanti Swaroop were employed as Police Constable. However, Chandra Pal resigned and joined the District Agriculture Department of the State. It is further averred that the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura vide his letter dated 19-9-1998 forwarded it to the Police Headquarters and subsequently the petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable on 6-9-2001 and thereafter was sent for training on 19-9-2001. On 1-12-2001 a First Information Report against the petitioner, his mother and brothers was lodged under Sections 409, 420, 468, 467 and 472, I. P. C. with the allegation that all the three brothers had obtained compassionate appointments on various dates by giving false declaration. The petitioner was suspended vide order dated 22-12-2001 in view of the lodging of the First Information Report. However, without holding any disciplinary proceedings his services have been dispensed with treating him a temporary employee under U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that since compassionate appointment is permanent in nature as held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ravi Kumar Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors. , 1999 (3) UPLBEC 2263, his termination under the 1975 Rules was illegal. He has gone on to urge that since there were allegations against him, his services could only be terminated by holding a domestic enquiry. In the last he has urged that both his brothers were never granted compassionate appointment but were regularly selected and, therefore, the allegations were also incorrect.
(3.) BEFORE we proceed to consider the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner it would be necessary to once again notice the admitted and unrebbuted facts. On the aforesaid basis, let us first examine the validity of the appointment of the petitioner assuming his brothers were not granted compassionate appointment.;