Compassionate Appointment Can't Be Rejected Mechanically For Non-Disclosure Of 498A IPC Case, Especially After Acquittal: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that rejection of a compassionate appointment claim cannot be automatic or mechanical merely on the ground of non-disclosure of a criminal case, particularly when the applicant was acquitted. The bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed that the competent authority must apply its mind and record a well-reasoned satisfaction of unfitness rather than...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that rejection of a compassionate appointment claim cannot be automatic or mechanical merely on the ground of non-disclosure of a criminal case, particularly when the applicant was acquitted.
The bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed that the competent authority must apply its mind and record a well-reasoned satisfaction of unfitness rather than acting on a routine or automated adverse police verification.
The bench observed;
"This finding of unfitness necessitates the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority, which must be based on well-reasoned grounds, not merely on an automated reaction to non-disclosure. In the present case, the criminal offense registered against the petitioner was petty in nature, arising entirely out of a matrimonial dispute with his first wife. The offence under Section 498-A of the IPC in this context does not involve moral turpitude. Furthermore, the matter was compromised, leading to an honourable acquittal prior to the issuance of the termination order".
The petitioner's father, who was serving as a peon in the State Veterinary Department, died on September 29, 2017. Following his death, the petitioner was granted a compassionate appointment on November 15, 2017, as a peon on probation, subject to police verification and submission of correct information.
However, during verification, the petitioner stated that no criminal was pending against him. It later emerged that he was involved in a matrimonial dispute case under Section 498A (cruelty) registered in 2014.
Before the authorities acted, the petitioner was acquitted of all charges on March 20, 2018, following a compromise between the parties. Despite this, the department issued a communication on June 2, 2018, declaring him unfit for service on the grounds of disclosure of the criminal case and subsequently terminating his services.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the termination was illegal as it was passed without issuing any show-cause notice, thus violating the principles of natural justice. He further conteded that he was acquitted before the termination order. The counsel also argued that the omission in the verification form was neither deliberate nor malicious, but due to a lack of legal understanding.
The State argued that the petitioner had supressed material information which in itself was sufficient to render him ineligible for government service. Further, due to the adverse police reports, the Inspector General of Police declared the petitioner unfit, which formed the basis of termination.
The court noted that a compassionate appointment is an exception to the general recruitment process, intended solely to provide immediate relief to the family facing financial hardship after the death of the sole breadwinner.
Further, the court reiterated the settled position of law that such appointments cannot be treated as a vested right or a regular mode of recruitment and must be guided by the object of immediate humanitarian assistance.
Additionally, the court examined clause 13.3 of the applicable policy, which permits termination only if, after appointment, the employee is found unfit for service based on reasoned satisfaction for the competent authority.
Therefore, the court held that such unfitness cannot be declared mechanically or solely based on police verification records. The authority is required to independently evaluate the facts and provide a reasoned justification.
Regarding the criminal cases of the petitioner, the court observed that the case arose purely out of a matrimonial dispute and was acquitted before the termination. The bench noted that the acquittal from the case under Section 498A IPC did not involve moral turpitude and was based on a petty dispute arising with his first wife.
Therefore, the court held, "The respondents failed to objectively assess whether a resolved matrimonial dispute rendered the petitioner genuinely unfit for a Class-IV post. The termination order lacks the well-reasoned satisfaction required under the policy. Consequently, the impugned communication dated 02/06/2018, the termination order dated 22/06/2018, and the communications dated 18/04/2019 are arbitrary and bad in law".
Case Title: Bherugir v State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No. 19107/2019
For Petitioner: Advocates Shantanu Sharma and Divyansh Luniya
For State: Government Advocate Ayushyaman Choudhary