1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.402/2007 Anil Kumar v. The Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Date of Order :: 9 th July, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. C.S.Kotwani, for the petitioner. Mr. Vijay Agarwal, for the respondents. .... By an order dated 14/16.6.2006 appointment was given to the petitioner on compassionate grounds as an unskilled workman being ward of Late Shri Babulal who died while in service of the Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. By an order dated 24/29.3.2007 the order of appointment was cancelled due to adverse report by the police regarding character of the petitioner. By this petition for writ challenge to the cancellation of appointment is given. It is the position admitted between the parties that in pursuant to the order dated 14/16.6.2006 the petitioner was not permitted to join the duties and ultimately by order dated 24/29.3.2007 the order of appointment was cancelled. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a young boy of 21 years and he suffered with a penalty of fine i.e. of Rs.50/- and 2 as such that cannot be a reason to determine his character adversely. Per contra, according to the respondents the petitioner was penalised by a fine of Rs.50/- being involved in gambling, therefore, his character was not found fit to be employed on compassionate grounds. Heard counsel for the parties. From perusal of the character certificate placed on record as Anx.R/1, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar, the petitioner suffered with fine of Rs,.50/- and Rs.100/- for being involved in an offence under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Prevention of Gambling Act. The petitioner has also not disputed the fact regarding imposition of fine. The petitioner is a young boy of 21 years and appointment was given by the respondents to him on compassionate grounds. A character of a person cannot be determined merely on basis of one or two stray incidents. The respondents before cancelling appointment of the petitioner should have verified general character of the petitioner and for that purpose an opportunity should have also been given to him. In the instant matter though the petitioner was not permitted to join the duty but an order of 3 appointment was passed in his favour and, therefore, before cancelling the same the respondents should have given an opportunity to him to explain the circumstances. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The order cancelling the appointment of the petitioner is quashed and the respondents are directed to act upon the order of appointment. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.