# Harish Verma v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 76
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-03
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 4833 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/harish-verma-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54547
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment - Constitution of India, 1950
- Article 226 - Petitioner challenged
impugned order, by which competent
authority of bank rejecting claim of
petitioner for compassionate appointment
only on the ground that his financial
condition was satisfactory - Held, while
passing the order denying a claim means
that right at least a substantive right
which as per bank own policy vests in
dependents of deceased - Well reasoned
order
should
have
been
passed
-
Consideration should be objective enough
so as to apprise aggrieved party about
valid reasons for denial of claim for
compassionate appointment - Law is well
settled, no amount of defence taken in
reply or pleading can substitute lacuna as
to reasoning in the order if the order is
cryptic - Impugned order quashed by
7 All. Harish Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
77
remitting to pass a fresh order. (Para 2, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10)

Allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

76 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
14. The issue is remanded back to
the inquiry officer to conduct and conclude
the
departmental
inquiry
strictly
in
accordance with law by affording an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and
to supply the copy of the demanded
documents and also to provide him an
opportunity to examine the witnesses
whose names have been indicted in para 11
of the defense reply dated 6.6.2024. The
aforesaid departmental inquiry may be
conducted and concluded with expedition
as the departmental inquiry may not be kept
pending against the petitioner for unlimited
period but it should be concluded within a
reasonable
time.
Thereafter,
the
disciplinary
authority
may
pass
an
appropriate
order
by
affording
an
opportunity of personal hearing to the
petitioner
seeking
his
explanation
providing him copy of inquiry report, if any
and after considering the explanation of the
petitioner the disciplinary authority may
pass
final
order
concluding
the
departmental inquiry finally. For doing the
aforesaid entire exercise no unnecessary
time may be consumed by both the
authorities i.e the inquiry officer and the
disciplinary authority.

15. It is made clear that while
conducting
and
concluding
the
departmental inquiry the inquiry officer
may
not
be
influenced
from
any
observation of this Court inasmuch these
observations are limited to the extent that
the inquiry officer has not conducted or
concluded the inquiry strictly in accordance
with law, therefore, while conducting and
concluding the departmental inquiry the
inquiry officer shall conclude the same
independently without being influenced
from any observation made in this order. At
the same time the disciplinary authority
may pass a final order without being
influenced from any observation made by
this Court.

16. In view of the aforesaid, the
writ petition is allowed on the aforesaid
limited points.

17. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 76
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.07.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 4833 of 2024

Harish Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shailesh Mani Tripathi, Shriprakash Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Krishna Mohan Asthana

Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment - Constitution of India, 1950
- Article 226 - Petitioner challenged
impugned order, by which competent
authority of bank rejecting claim of
petitioner for compassionate appointment
only on the ground that his financial
condition was satisfactory - Held, while
passing the order denying a claim means
that right at least a substantive right
which as per bank own policy vests in
dependents of deceased - Well reasoned
order
should
have
been
passed
-
Consideration should be objective enough
so as to apprise aggrieved party about
valid reasons for denial of claim for
compassionate appointment - Law is well
settled, no amount of defence taken in
reply or pleading can substitute lacuna as
to reasoning in the order if the order is
cryptic - Impugned order quashed by
7 All. Harish Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
77
remitting to pass a fresh order. (Para 2, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10)

Allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. U.O.i. Vs M.L. Capoor & ors., AIR 1974 SC 87

2. S.N. Mukherjee Vs U.O.I. AIR 1990 SC 1984

3. State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. Vs Shashi
Kumar, 2019 (3) SCC 653

4. S.B.I. Vs Somvir Singh, 2007 4 SCC 778

5. Mohinder Singh Gill Vs Chief Election
Commissioner (1978) 1 Supreme Court Cases
405

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Shailesh Mani Tripathi,
learned
Advocate
appearing
for
the
petitioner, Shri Krishna Mohan Asthana,
learned Advocate appearing for respondent
Bank, learned Standing Counsel for the
State.

2. By means of this petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution, the
petitioner has challenged the order dated
05.01.2024 passed by the respondent
competent authority of the bank rejecting
the
claim
of
the
petitioner
for
compassionate appointment only on the
ground that his financial condition was
satisfactory.

3. The argument advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioner is that
merely recording a fact that the financial
condition
was
satisfactory
was
not
sufficient enough to be taken as good
ground or reason to reject the claim of the
petitioner for compassionate appointment.
It is argued that in view of settled legal
position, the competent authority ought to
have discussed financial aspect that was
involved in the matter which according to
the competent authority was sufficient
enough to deny the claim of the petitioner
for compassionate appointment in view of
the bank's policy laid down in that regard
and the circular letter issued also at the end
of the bank.

4. In support of his argument,
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon various authorities like one in Union
of India Vs. M.L. Capoor and others AIR
1974 SC 87 and S.N. Mukherjee Vs.
Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1984.

5. Meeting the arguments, learned
Advocate for the respondent bank has
placed reliance upon the avernments made
in paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit in
which details of terminal dues and other
financial status of the petitioner has been
discussed in detail and submits that this
itself
discloses
that
the
financial
background of the petitioner was sound
enough to take him out of the zone of
consideration as per the policy of the bank
and circular letter issued. He has also
placed reliance upon the authorities cited in
the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and
others Vs. Shashi Kumar 2019 (3) SCC
653 and also State Bank of India Vs.
Somvir Singh 2007 4 SCC 778 and the
ratio laid down in these judgment

6. Having heard learned counsel
for the respective parties and having
perused the record particularly the order
impugned, I find that the order simply
records in one line that "It was found that
financial condition of dependent of the
deceased was satisfactory and, therefore,
no circumstances were found sound enough
to offer him compassionate appointment."
In my considered view this one line
78 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
satisfaction seems to be based upon some
material that ought to have been discussed
as has been discussed in paragraph-5 of the
counter affidavit. There is no quarrel upon
the legal position and that the bank can
make its own circular and compassionate
appointment cannot be claimed as a matter
of vested right. However, while passing the
order denying a claim means that right at
least a substantive right which as per the
bank own policy vests in the dependents of
the deceased, a well reasoned order should
have been passed. Thus, consideration
should be objective enough so as to apprise
the concerned aggrieved party about valid
reasons
for
denial
of
claim
for
compassionate appointment.

7. The law is well settled, no
amount of defence taken in the reply or
pleading can substitute the lacuna as to
reasoning in the order if the order is cryptic
and, accordingly. In the case of Mohinder
Singh
Gill
Vs.
Chief
Election
Commissioner (1978) 1 Supreme Court
Cases 405 vide paragraph-8 Court has
observed thus:

 "8. The second equally relevant
matter is that when a statutory functionary
makes an order based on certain grounds,
its validity must be judged by the reasons
so mentioned and cannot be supplemented
by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or
otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the
beginning may, by the time it comes to
Court on account of a challenge, get
validated by additional grounds later
brought out.".

8. In view of the above, the order
dated 05.01.2024, impugned herein this
petition is held unsustainable. The order
dated 05.01.2024 Annexure No.1 to the
writ petition, passed by the Assistant
General
Manager,
Canara
Bank
(respondent No. 3) is hereby quashed.

9. The matter is remitted to the
Assistant General Manager, Canara Bank
(respondent No. 3) to pass fresh order, this
time reasoned and speaking one.

10. It is clarified that merely
because certain details have not been found
to be placed in the order regarding financial
condition or background of the petitioner
should not itself become a ground to deny
the claim again and there has to be an
objective consideration of the material
available before the authority while passing
the order and the order should be reasoned
and speaking one. Appropriate decision
should be taken by the competent authority
within a period of two months from the
date of production of certified copy of this
order.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 78
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 4891 of 2024

Uma Shanker Prasad ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Arun Kumar Pandey, I.M. Pandey Ist

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - UP Government Servants
(Disciple and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 7
- Disciplinary proceeding - Major penalty