JUDGMENT
R.L. Anand, J.
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.
2. The prayer made by petitioner Jaspal Singh is that directions be issued in the nature of certiorari for quashment of order dated 10.4.1999, Annexure P7, and letter dated 15.7.1999, Annexure P9 and further a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued against the respondents directing them to give him a post of Class-III in the State Bank of Patiala.
3. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner :-
Shri Gurnam Singh, father of the petitioner, was employed with respondent No. 2 and at the relevant time he was working in Jaladiwal Branch as Asstt. Manager, On 24.2.1997, the father of the petitioner got injured in the bank premises by accidental firing of the gun. From 24.2.1997 to 5.4.1997 Shri Gurnam Singh remained under treatment but unfortunately he expired 6.4.1997 leaving behind three dependents i.e. widow, petitioner and an unmarried daughter. The petitioner is seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on the plea that he has read upto B.A. Part II and according to the policy of the bank he is entitled to the relief as prayed for.
4. Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. The stand of respondent No. 2, in short, is that the case of the petitioner was recommended to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Banking Division in terms of its policy but the Government of India, Ministry of Finance Banking Division did not give the approval to the bank for the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds. It is also the stand of respondent No. 2 that Shri Gurnam Singh was an officer of tainted personality as he was involved in a case of financial irregularity and a punishment of censure awarded to him and, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the bank to refer to the case to the Government of India.
5. During the course of the submissions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 has invited our attention to a letter dated 3.1.1998 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, to the Chief Executives of all Public Sector Banks and Financial Institutions, in which it was directed that “All proposals for compassionate appointments in cases where deceased employees were awarded major penalty for any act of misconduct prior to his death or disciplinary proceedings were pending or contemplated against the employee at the time of death, which would have resulted in award of a major penalty would continue to be referred to Government with the recommendations of the Board. Further, all proposals for compassionate appointment in cases where the employee was involved in financial irregularities, embezzlement of funds, frauds etc. irrespective of whether a minor or major punishment had been awarded or cases where disciplinary proceedings were pending/contemplated in cases of financial irregularities, embezzlement of funds, frauds etc. would continue to be referred to the Government with the recommendation of the Board.” No doubt, as per the policy of the bank, compassionate appointments are permissible but when an employee is under cloud in any manner including a case of financial irregularities, in such eventuality the case of compassionate appointment has to be referred to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance. Since the Ministry of Finance has not given approval for the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds, therefore, the bank was justified in not giving employment to the petitioner. It is the case of respondent No. 2 that a punishment of censure, which is a punishment under the rules, was awarded to Shri Gurnam Singh for his alleged involvement in the financial irregularities, there fore, the petitioner cannot take the benefit of compassionate appointment.
6. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that this writ petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed with no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.
7. Petition dismissed.