[2025:RJ-JP:48801-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1127/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10188/2009 Ram Prasad Son Of Late Shri Keshra, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Khora Pada, Ward No. 2, Lalsot District-Dausa (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary To The Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.). 2. Dy. Secretary To The Government Of Rajasthan, Local Self Government Department Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.). 3. Nagar Palika Lalsot, District-Dausa Through Its Executive Officer. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma For Respondent(s) : None HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Judgment 01/12/2025 1. The instant special appeal has been filed by the appellant- petitioner (hereinafter referred as ‘petitioner’ for short) aggrieved of the impugned order dated 17.03.2025 passed by learned Single Judge as the writ petition was decided in the absence of counsel and without considering the pleadings of the case. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondents without conducting departmental proceedings and [2025:RJ-JP:48801-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-1127/2025] without affording an opportunity of hearing, terminated his services by order dated 29.07.2009, just few months prior to completion of his probation period. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner’s father performed two marriages and he is the son out of the second marriage. 3. Learned counsel further submitted that mother of the petitioner – Meera Devi was a temporary worker in UCO Bank and was not a regular employee, her working on temporary basis could not be a hurdle in his appointment on compassionate basis. Learned counsel further submitted that prior to the petitioner, second son (step brother) of the deceased-employee (Late Sh. Keshra) was employed but on account of marriage, he is living separately with his independent family, away from the petitioner and the other dependents of the family. On account of this, learned counsel further submitted the fact that the brother and the mother were in employment, could not be a ground for termination of his services under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (herein referred to as Rules of 1996) as no one in the family, who are dependents, is in regular employment. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. This Court perused the order dated 17.03.2025 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on account of concealment of the fact that the two family members namely, mother and the brother (step) were already in service, however, this fact was not disclosed at the time of his appointment on compassionate basis [2025:RJ-JP:48801-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-1127/2025] under the Rules of 1996. Relevant para 3 & 4 of the order impugned reads as under:- “3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the mother of the petitioner, i.e., Meera Devi was already in service, she is working in UCO Bank, Lalsot, District Dausa and the eldest son of the deceased, Ram Charan was also in Government service. Counsel submits that these facts were withheld and suppressed by the petitioner at the time of submissions of his application form for getting appointment on compassionate ground, hence, under these circumstances, the order impugned has been passed which requires no interference of this Court. 4. Considering the argument put forward by the learned counsel for the respondents and looking to the fact that two family members of the petitioner were already in service at the time of death of the deceased Government Servant and this fact was suppressed by the petitioner at the time of submissions of his applications form for seeking appointment on compassionate ground, hence, the respondents have not caused any illegality in passing the order impugned, thus does not require any interference of this Court.” 6. This Court noted that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition considering the fact that the petitioner at the time of submission of application for appointment on compassionate basis did not disclose the fact that his mother - Meera Devi (Biological Mother) and his step brother (son from the first wife – Prem Devi) are in employment. This concealment was informed to the respondents by way of a complaint and, therefore, considering the [2025:RJ-JP:48801-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-1127/2025] same, on account of suppression of material facts, respondents terminated his services. 7. This Court considered the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the affidavit filed at the time of submission of application, which shows that mother of the petitioner stated that none of the legal heirs or dependents of the deceased are in employment of the State Government/Central Government/Board. There is one step brother (son from the first marriage of deceased Government employee), who is in Government employment and further mother of the present petitioner - Meera Devi also in employment and working in UCO Bank, however, this fact was not disclosed rather suppressed in the affidavit submitted along with the application for compassionate basis by the petitioner. 8. Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment, as passed in Civil Appeal No.13565/2025 titled as Commissioner of Police and Ors. Vs. Ex. Ct. Vinod Kumar dated 12.11.2025, held that appointment secured on the basis of forged and fabricated documents deserves no leniency and the order of dismissal cannot be interfered with even in case where no departmental proceedings were conducted, in such cases, as that would not vitiate the final order of dismissal from services. Para 8 of the judgment reads as under :- "Having considered the matter, we have no hesitation in holding that the orders passed by the CAT as well as by the High Court are unsustainable. The fact that once on the basis of a forged degree/certificate, a person gets appointment in the uniformed service of the country, that being the [2025:RJ-JP:48801-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-1127/2025] police, which is supposed to uphold the rule of law, the act of the respondent is uncondonable. The further fact which is admitted is that there is absolutely, no rebuttal by the respondent that the certificate/degree presented by him before the appellants at the time of his appointment and on the basis of which, he was appointed as a Constable, is genuine. Having perused the original records and the letter from the issuing authority which categorically stating that the degree/certificate in question is forged and fabricated leaves no doubt that such fact cannot be controverted. Thus, no holding of a departmental inquiry in the particular facts and circumstances of the present case may not be a factor to vitiate the final order of dismissal from service passed against the respondent. Thus, on this short point, the appeal is allowed and the order of the CAT as affirmed by the High Court stands set aside. The punishment of dismissal from service awarded to the respondent by the concerned appellants stands restored. No order as to costs." 10. In the present case, on the basis of the above discussion, this Court noted that the petitioner by playing fraud upon the respondents secured appointment under the Rules of 1996 by suppression of the fact that his mother and the step brother were in employment, and a false affidavit was also submitted along with the application as submitted by him in term of Rules of 1996. 11. In terms of the above discussion and law as written by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ex. Ct. Vinod Kumar (supra), this court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.03.2025. [2025:RJ-JP:48801-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-1127/2025] 12. Consequently, the present special appeal, being devoid of merits is dismissed. 13. No order as to costs. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J DUSHYANT SINGH /56