WP/21559/2022 of N.Rajkumar Vs The Secretary to Government on 10 September 2026

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned punishment imposed against the petitioner vide order dated 04.08.2020, which was later on confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 04.03.2022.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition is that, the petitioner was appointed on a compassionate ground in the respondent-Department on 24.11.1986 on the death of his mother in the year 1969. It is the contention of the respondent that when a person seeking compassionate appointment as per G.O.Ms.No.998, Labour and Employment Department dated 02.05.1981, no other family member should be in Government employment. According to the charge, though the petitioner’s father was in Government employment viz., in the Transport Corporation, the petitioner suppressed such fact and secured the compassionate appointment on 24.11.1996. Therefore, he has committed a misconduct.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s mother died during 1969 and that during her lifetime, his father deserted his mother and after the demise of his mother in 1969, the petitioner was admitted in an orphanage and he was brought up there. It is also the contention of the petitioner that since the petitioner’s father married to another woman and deserted the petitioner and his mother, his father cannot be treated as their family member. It is also the further contention that having the petitioner appointed during 1986, removing him from service in the year 2020, almost after a period of 25 years has prejudiced him very much. It is also the further submission of the petitioner that in the year 1997, a similar set of charge was framed against the petitioner, which culminated into an enquiry report. But, such enquiry report was cancelled and a fresh Enquiry Officer was appointed, which conduct is unknown to service jurisprudence. It is also the contention of the petitioner that on the date of the appointment of this petitioner, no one was in the Government employment. Therefore, the findings are perverse. It is their further submission that since no witnesses were examined, the document relied by the respondent cannot be termed as proof. Hence, prayed to allow the present writ petition.

5. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly objected by the learned Additional Government Pleader and would contend that when the disciplinary proceedings was defective, the Disciplinary Authority is competent enough to change the Enquiry Officer and also to cancel the enquiry report. It is also his contention that notwithstanding the cancellation of the first enquiry report during 1999, the petitioner cannot take advantage of such defence at the stage of judicial review, after having participated in the second enquiry and subjected himself, since because it went against him. It is the submission the learned Additional Government Pleader that the non examination of the witnesses to prove the document will in no way advance the case of the petitioner as even according to the petitioner, he has admitted that on the date of his mother’s death, his father was employed in the Transport Corporation. Therefore, it is the contention that having admitted the charge, the question of prejudice pleaded by the petitioner on account of non examination of witnesses are curious. Hence, prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

7. While looking into the charge, the same is “submission of a false certificate before the appointing authority to secure compassionate appointment”. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s mother died during 1969. It is equally not in dispute that while his mother alive, the petitioner’s father was an employee in the Government Transport Corporation. Though this Court has got it’s own apprehension in respect of conducting the second enquiry on the same set of charges, after receipt of the enquiry report from the first Enquiry Officer, at this length of time especially due to the conduct of the petitioner, the glaring error so committed by the respondent would lose it’s significance. As a matter of fact, had the petitioner objected in conducting the second enquiry at the threshold, then the result would be different. But, here the petitioner subjected himself for enquiry without raising his little finger. He raised such objection only after imposition of punishment. Therefore, the contention in respect of his first charge during 1997 and the cancellation of report during 1999 and appointment of Enquiry Officer thereafter, cannot be a ground to interfere in the present writ petition.

8. Coming to the reasonableness of the impugned order, it is the contention of the petitioner that when the petitioner was appointed, no one was in the Government employment. But, even according to the petitioner’s defence, his mother died on 15.06.1969 and his father contracted second marriage on 09.02.1972 and he resigned from Government employment on 04.08.1975. The specific submission of the respondents is that as per G.O.Ms.No.998 dated 02.05.1981, a person to have a compassionate appointment, no family member should be in the Government employment. For ready reference, this Court deems it appropriate to extract G.O.Ms.No.998 dated 02.05.1981. “In the Memo read above, the Government issued the following orders on the clarification raised by the Collector of Madras:- “The dependent of a Government servant who died in harness leaving his family in indigent circumstances, is eligible to avail himself of the concession granted in the Government order read above, even when there is already an earning member in the family, if, in the opinion of the appointing authority, the family is in indigent circumstance. Before deciding indigent circumstances of the family authority should take into accounts the number of dependants left, the movable and immovable assets and liabilities left by the deceased Government Servant the income of the earning member in the family, as also his liabilities. However, the concession under the Government orders read above should not be granted to more than one dependant in the family of the deceased Government servant.”

2. The Government have since reviewed the orders referred to in paragraph I above. They consider that according to existing orders, there is scope for abuse of the above concession on the plea that the family of the Government servant who died in harness is in indigent circumstance eventhough there is already any earning member in that family. The Government have therefore decided that if in the family of the Government servant who died in harness, there is already an earning member, irrespective of the fact that the member is employed in Government service or elsewhere, other dependant members of the deceased Government servant will not be eligible for the grant of concession granted in the Government orders read above.

3. The Government accordingly, in partial modification of the orders in Government Memo, read above direct that if there is already any earning member in the family of the Government servant who died in harness, the other dependants of the deceased Government servant will not be eligible for the concession of appoint in Government departments and Government undertaking without reference to Employment Exchange.”

9. Prior to the implementation of the above Government Order, the Rule prevailing then was, notwithstanding the fact that the dependent of the Government Servant, had already an earning member in the family, it is for the authority to form an opinion that whether the family is in indigent circumstances or not. It is well settled principle of law that, the compassionate appointment is considered to be an exception to the public employment and it has to be governed by the existing guideline and the relevant guideline should be the one which prevails on the date of death of the employee.

10. According to the above G.O., on the date of death of the petitioner’s mother Tmt.I.Baby Sarojini viz., on 15.06.1969, whether a person was in Government employment or not is immaterial. What is material is, whether the family is in indigent circumstances or not.

11. In the case in hand, the contention of the petitioner is that, his father

has deserted him and his mother is a destitute woman and after the demise in the year 1969, the petitioner was admitted in an Orphanage and he was brought up there. This factum is not seriously disputed by the respondents. But, the respondent would arrive at a conclusion that the above circumstances of the petitioner is not a justification to provide a false certificate, as if his father was not employed in the Government service.

12. Here, though the respondent-Authority has arrived at a conclusion that the charge has been proved, now this Court wants to discuss, is there are any occasion arises to the respondent-Authority to frame such charge. In the case in hand, during 1993, the petitioner was sought to produce certain documents in respect of the employment status of the petitioner’s father. He submitted a certificate issued by the Tahsildar. In that certificate, it is stated that the petitioner’s father was not employed in the Government service. Fur which they issued a charge memorandum and since 1993 onwards, a Damocles sword was hanging upon the petitioner.

13. No doubt, the petitioner has not disputed about the Government employment of his father. But, his case is that, on account of his desertion, he cannot be construed as the family member. In the absence of serious dispute in respect of desertion of the petitioner and his mother, this Court is of the firm view that, since because there was no material to show that his father divorced from his mother, does not bring his father within the parameter of family member as mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.998. This material aspect has not all been considered by the respondent.

14. Notwithstanding the above fact, as already stated, according to the relevant G.O., it becomes immaterial whether any of the family member is in Government employment on the date of death of the petitioner’s mother. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the impugned order rests upon the charge, which cannot be framed as per the guidelines prevails at the relevant point of time. Therefore, when the very charge becomes illegal and irrelevant, any finding thereupon will have no significance.

15. Taking into consideration of the date of death of the petitioner’s mother, the existence of any other family member in Government employment was not relevant under the applicable Government Order. Therefore, as already stated, the very foundation of the charge against the petitioner become unsustainable. Further, though the initial charge was framed in the year 1997 and an enquiry was conducted, the enquiry report was subsequently cancelled and a fresh enquiry was conducted. It is also not in dispute that, at the time when the certificate was produced, the petitioner’s father was no longer in

Government service. More importantly, the respondents have not seriously disputed that the petitioner was brought up in an orphanage after the death of his mother. Further, it is also not in dispute that his father had deserted him and his mother. In such circumstances, the petitioner’s father cannot be treated as a member of the petitioner’s family so as to render the petitioner ineligible for compassionate appointment. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the charge framed against the petitioner cannot be sustained and as a consequence, the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are also liable to be set aside.

16. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. As a concomitant, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits and seniority. However, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant any back wages for the period from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. But, the above period may be treated as continuity of service. No costs. Consequently, connected WMP is also closed. 10-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KMI

To

1. The Secretary to Government Social Welfare and Women Empowerment Department, Secretariat, Chennai 09

2. The Commissioner of Social Welfare Panagal Building, Chennai 15

3. The Administrative officer (incharge) Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Directorate, Chepauk, Chennai 5.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KMI WP No. 21559 of 2022 AND WMP NO. 20581 OF 2022 10-09-2026