- (1.) The matter has been heard through video conferencing. There is no complaint about any audio and visual connectivity. I.A.No.10079 of 2019 This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 67 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. Heard. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the averments made in the interlocutory application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, I.A.No.10079 of 2019 is allowed and delay of 67 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No.607 of 2019 The instant intra-court appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 11.06.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.2851 of 2010, by which, the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the impugned order dated 01.06.2004, whereby and whereunder, the respondent no.2 has cancelled the appointment of the writ petitioner made on compassionate ground.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are required to be enumerated which reads as hereunder:- The father of the writ petitioner late Krishna Sahu was a permanent employee working as Junior Account Clerk in the Office of Block Development Officer, died in harness leaving behind a son and daughter as his sole dependents. The writ petitioner, on the death of his father has made an application for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of circular dated 05.10.1991 without disclosing therein that the mother of the writ petitioner is a Government servant and lives separately and a panchnama dated 25.12.1995 to that effect has been prepared. He also did not enclose the documents with the application such as copy of the said panchnama dated 25.12.1995 as also the ration card issued in favour of the mother of the writ petitioner on 17.01.1996 in which the name of her deceased husband-the father of the writ petitioner does not find place in the column meant for family members. The respondent authority, after considering the case of the writ petitioner, had referred the case for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground before the District Level Compassionate Appointment Committee, where the case of the writ petitioner was considered for appointment on compassionate ground and accordingly, the respondent no.2 had issued an appointment order appointing the writ petitioner vide order dated 22.05.2003. The writ petitioner, thereafter, started discharging his duty. On 20.02.2004, the respondent no.3 informed the writ petitioner about a complaint having been received against him stating therein that the mother of the writ petitioner, namely Rukmani Devi, is a government servant and by suppressing this fact, the writ petitioner has got appointment on compassionate ground and accordingly, the writ petitioner was asked to submit an explanation within two days. According to the writ petitioner, although the show cause notice was issued to him and he was asked to give reply within two days but the day when the copy of the show cause notice was received by him, the period of two days had already expired, however, he made a representation before the competent authority on 25.02.2004 but without considering the same and without initiating a regular departmental proceeding order of dismissal from service has been passed on 01.06.2004. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed an objection against the order of termination as on 05.06.2004 but the same has not been considered which resulted into filing of writ petition before this Court being W.P.(S) No.2851 of 2010, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court, after considering the stand, inter-alia, as has been taken by the State authority about inadmissibility of the appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of a circular of the State as contained in Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department letter no.13293 dated 05.10.1991, which provides that if both husband and wife are in government service and if any one dies, the appointment on compassionate ground is not to be provided to any of the dependent, declined to interfere with the impugned decision, which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal.
(3.) Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not considered the fact that the order of termination has been passed without providing an opportunity of hearing. According to the learned counsel, the respondent authorities ought to have initiated a regular departmental proceeding, since the order of punishment was of termination, as required under the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules which provides for initiating a regular departmental proceeding, in case of inflicting major punishment such as discharge, dismissal or removal but having not resorted to such discipline and appeal rule, the authority passed the impugned order cancelling the appointment made on compassionate ground which has not been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order, hence the order impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law. ;