IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1017 of 2001 Date of decision: 07.07.2008 State of H.P. and another … Petitioners Versus Nasim Akhtar … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners: Mr. R.M. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral): This petition by the State is directed against the order of learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal dated 30.3.2001, whereby the Original Application filed by the applicant has been allowed and the order of the disciplinary authority terminating the services of the employee has been set aside. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Shri Musharaf Ali, father of respondent Nasim Akhtar was an employee of the Police Department. Shri Musharaf Ali expired on 17.5.1994. Thereafter, the respondent applied for compassionate appointment under the kith and kin policy of the State. It is not disputed that he was offered the temporary post of Clerk in the Police Department. Thereafter, the Government passed an order dispensing with the services of the 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 respondent on the ground that he had not disclosed the fact that his brother Mehandi Hassan was already in government employment when he had applied for the job. The applicant challenged this order by filing Original Application No.1134/1996 before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal set aside the order on the ground that this order casts a stigma on the employee and, therefore, could not have been passed without holding any inquiry. After the learned Tribunal passed the order, a Memo was issued to the employee on 26.2.1997 whereby it was proposed to hold an inquiry against him. Articles of charge and imputation of misconduct were spelt out. The gist of the misconduct alleged against the employee was that he had intentionally not mentioned the fact that his brother Mehandi Hassan was in employment when he applied for compassionate appointment and, therefore, he had left column No. 6 of the application blank. Inquiry was held and the Investigating Officer after considering the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the employee was not guilty of any misconduct and exonerated him of the charges leveled against him. According to the evidence led before the Inquiry Officer, both the employees as well as his mother had mentioned the fact that Mehandi Hassan was in employment but they had set up the case that Mehandi Hassan was living separately. In fact it stood proved on record that Mehandi Hassan had filed an affidavit duly attested by Shri Jagat Ram Sharma, Advocate, Notary Public, in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Nahan, stating therein that he was living separately from his mother and younger brother. The disciplinary authority has differed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer without giving any reasons as to why he has not accepted the report of the Inquiry Officer. He has only stated that he 3 does not agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, the punishment of termination of services was imposed upon the applicant. The learned Tribunal has dealt with the evidence in detail and has come to the conclusion that the findings of the Inquiry Officer that the employee has not concealed any facts was absolute correct. The learned Tribunal on merits also has come to the conclusion that the applicant/employee was entitled to a job under the kith and kin policy. As far as the second part of the order is concerned, the learned Tribunal was not required to give any findings in this regard. The termination of the services of the employee was only on one count, that he had misstated the facts when he had applied for compassionate appointment under the kith and kin policy. This allegation has been factually not proved from the material on record. It is apparent that respondent Nasim Akhtar, his mother and as well as brother Mehandi Hassan had apprised the concerned authority that Mehandi Hassan was in employment in the Police Department itself. As mentioned above, Mehandi Hassan had filed an affidavit in this regard also. Therefore, the order of the learned Tribunal is absolutely correct and calls for no interference. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. In view of the orders passed in the main petition, the interim order dated 18.10.2001 passed in CMP No. 1530 of 2001 and confirmed on 4.3.2002, stands vacated. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge ( V.K. Ahuja ), July 07, 2008 Judge (BSS) 4