HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 8446 of 2014 Court No. - 33 HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Brijesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent no.1 and perused the record on Board. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.01.2014, whereby he has been dismissed from the post of Ward-boy, Karmchari Rajya Bima Chikitsalay, Agra (E.S.I. Hospital, Agra). 3. The solitary submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been dismissed from service without affording him an opportunity of hearing. 4. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Ward-boy (class-IV employee) at E.S.I. Hospital, Agra on compassionate grounds consequent upon the death of his father (Roop Chandra), who died in harness on 16.10.2010 while serving on the post of Dhobi (Washerman) at E.S.I. Hospital, Agra. During the course of the petitioner's service, the District Magistrate, Agra, vide letter dated 09.05.2013 bearing Letter No.153 /OSD, directed that an enquiry be conducted with respect to the compassionate appointment of the present petitioner on the allegation that he had secured job by furnishing a false affidavit regarding dependency, despite the fact that his mother was already employed in Mental Health Hospital, Agra. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter dated 09.05.2013, the Medical Superintendent, E.S.I. Hospital, Agra, vide its letter dated 15.05.2013, requested the Director, Mental Health Hospital, Agra, to submit a report with respect to the employment details of Mamta Devi, w/o Late Roop Chandra Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Adarsh Kumar, B.N. Rai, Manish Pandey, Radhey Krishna Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C. S. C., Jyotsna Srivastava Ashish Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) (mother of the present petitioner), along with particulars of her family members. Pursuant to the letter dated 15.05.2013, the Medical Superintendent, Mental Health Hospital, Agra, submitted a report dated 18.05.2013 stating that Mamta Devi w/o. Late Roop Chandra had been working as a Washer-Woman since 09.04.1992 and had four sons and one daughter, all married. The record further reveals that while applying for compassionate appointment, the present petitioner had furnished an affidavit, along with his application, to the effect that no member of his family was employed in any government or semi-government service. Likewise, Mamta Devi w/o. Late Roop Chandra (mother of the present petitioner) also submitted an affidavit in support of compassionate appointment of the present petitioner by stating therein that her son may be accorded compassionate appointment in place of her deceased husband and no member of the family was employed in government or semi-government service. 5. Pursuant to the report dated 18.05.2013 submitted by the Medical Superintendent, Mental Health Hospital, Agra, a show-cause notice dated 01.11.2013 (Annexure No.2) was issued to the present petitioner to submit his reply, which was served upon him on 14.11.2013. Under the aforesaid notice, present petitioner was required to submit his explanation within fifteen days. It was further provided in the said notice that, in case, the petitioner desired a personal hearing, he could appear on any working day in the Directorate to put forth his defence. It was clarified in the said show- cause notice that, in case, the explanation submitted was found unsatisfactory or same was not submitted within the stipulated period, it would be presumed that the petitioner had nothing to say in his defence against the charges levelled against him and, accordingly, appropriate disciplinary proceeding would follow. 6. A specific finding has been recorded in the order impugned dated 16.01.2014 that despite service of the show cause notice, the present petitioner failed to submit any explanation till the date passing of impugned order. Relying upon the report dated 18.05.2013 submitted by the Medical Superintendent, Mental Health Hospital, Agra, the disciplinary authority has returned a finding that Ashish Kumar (present petitioner) and his mother, namely, Mamta Devi w/o Late Roop Chandra had concealed the material facts and furnished false affidavits to secure the compassionate appointment for the present petitioner to the post of Ward-boy. WRIA No. 8446 of 2014 2 7. The finding returned by the disciplinary authority with respect to the non- submission of the explanation by the petitioner, despite the opportunity having been afforded to him, has not been rebutted by the petitioner in the writ petition. He has simply averred in the petition that no opportunity of hearing afforded to him. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamal Nayan Mishra vs. State of M.P., reported in (2010) 2 SCC 169. The cited judgement is clearly distinguishable on facts and is not applicable in the given facts and circumstances of the present case. In the aforesaid cited case, no opportunity whatsoever had be afforded to the delinquent employee before taking action against him for furnishing false information at the time of submitting the application form. However, in the present case, a specific show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and opportunity was also granted to him to submit his explanation as well as to avail personal hearing, but the petitioner failed to avail the same. Moreover, the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority, while passing the dismissal order dated 16.01.2014, with regard to concealment of the mother's employment, and furnishing of false affidavit, and non-submission of explanation on his part, have not been specifically rebutted in the instant writ petition. 8. In this conspectus, as above, this court does not find any justifiable ground to entertain the instant writ petition or interfere with the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority. The finding returned by the disciplinary authority remain unrebutted by the petitioner in the instant writ petition and are based upon material available on record. There is no illegality, perversity, or infirmity in the order under challenge so as to warrant any indulgence by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. As such, the instant writ petition, being misconceived and devoid of merits, is dismissed with no order as to costs. May 12, 2026 VR WRIA No. 8446 of 2014 3 (Dinesh Pathak,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIBHA RATAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad