JUDGMENT 1. - Since identical questions of law and fact involve in both these writ petitions, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Both the petitioners are real brothers and they challenge the punishment orders of Disciplinary authority and the appellate authority whereby their services were ordered to be terminated. 3. The contextual facts depict that against both the petitioners departmental enquiries were initiated under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short the Rules 1958) on the charges of committing fraud in seeking compassionate appointment. The petitioner Rajesh Kumar Saxena was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk by the Joint Director, Medical and Health Services Jaipur vide order dated 11.9.1987 under Rajasthan Deceased Govt. Servants Dependent's (While dying in Services) Rules, 1975 (for short Rules of 1975). The petitioner Arun Kumar Saxena was also appointed under the Rules 1975 initially on the post of Malaria Surveillance Inspector on 1.5.1976 and thereafter on the post of Lower Division Clerk vide Director Medical and Health's letter dated 10.3.1978. The allegations against both the petitioners in the charge sheet were that they got the appointments by deceitful means. Their brother Ashok Kumar Saxena was already appointed on compassionate grounds under the Rules 1975 after the death of their father Babu Lal Saxena who died on January 20, 1976 while working as Male Nurse II in Primary Health Centre Raja Kheda (Dholpur) and this fact was deliberately concealed by the petitioners from the authorities. Charge sheets dated April 18, 1992 were served upon the petitioners and Enquiry Officer after completing necessary departmental procedure submitted his report. The Director Medical and Health Services Rajasthan Jaipur thereafter vide orders dated October 14, 1994 terminated the services of the petitioners. Appeals under Rule 23 of the Rules 1958 were preferred by the petitioners but their appeals were dismissed by the State of Rajasthan in the month of July 1996. The orders of Director Medical and Health as well as the appellate orders have been assailed in these writ petitions. 4. Mr. Appeals under Rule 23 of the Rules 1958 were preferred by the petitioners but their appeals were dismissed by the State of Rajasthan in the month of July 1996. The orders of Director Medical and Health as well as the appellate orders have been assailed in these writ petitions. 4. Mr. M.M. Mehrishi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners canvassed that impugned orders are illegal and void since they have been passed without complying the mandatory provisions of Rule 16(10) of the Rules of 1958 by not supplying the copy of the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer to the petitioners. The orders are also against the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of being heard was provided to the petitioners. The evidence of witnesses was not properly appreciated. Evidence of one case was considered in another. Thus the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 5. Mr. Richpal Singh on the other hand supported the impugned orders and contended that appointment of the petitioner under Rules 1975 was ab initio illegal having been obtained by deceptive and deceitful means. When Ashok Kumar Saxena was already appointed under Rules 1975 the petitioners could not have been appointed under the said Rules as only one dependent of the deceased was entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. The enquiry was made strictly in accordance with the Rules and all documents desired by the petitioners were made available to them. The petitioners were given adequate opportunity to defend and the adduce evidence. Copies of Enquiry reports were despatched and made available to the petitioners. Second show cause notice was not required to be given in view of amendment of Article 311 of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on (1) State of M.P. v. Shyama (AIR SCW 1996 P. 2709) and (2) S.K. Singh v. Central Bank ( 1996(6) SCC 415 ) . 6. I have pondered over the rival submissions and carefully weighed the material on record. 7. A look at the appointment orders of the petitioners annexed with the writ petitions, demonstrates that the petitioners were appointed on compassionate grounds under the provisions of Rules 1975. This fact in also not in dispute that after the death of Babu Lal Saxena on January 20, 1976 his son Ashok Kumar Saxena was given compassionate appointment. 8. 7. A look at the appointment orders of the petitioners annexed with the writ petitions, demonstrates that the petitioners were appointed on compassionate grounds under the provisions of Rules 1975. This fact in also not in dispute that after the death of Babu Lal Saxena on January 20, 1976 his son Ashok Kumar Saxena was given compassionate appointment. 8. The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. A provision was made in Rules 1975 for giving gainful employment to one of the eligible dependents of the deceased out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided the family would not be able to make both ends meet. Since compassionate appointment is made without following the particular procedure, care should be taken that such appointment does not unduly interfere with the right of other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek employment against the post which would have been available to them, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependent of a deceased employee. 9. Since Ashok Kumar Saxena was given compassionate appointment under Rules 1975, the petitioners Rajesh Kumar Saxena and Arun Kumar Saxena could not have been appointed on compassionate grounds and their appointment was per se illegal. 10. I am unable to pursuade myself with the submissions advanced before me by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the impugned orders are illegal and against the principles of natural justice. A dose look at the material on record goes to show that departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the provisions of Rules 1958. Even for the sake of argument, if it is believed that copies of enquiry reports were not supplied, the petitioners have to further explain as to what prejudice was caused to them on account of non-supply of the enquiry reports. 11. In the facts and circumstances of this case where the petitioners got the compassionate appointment by deceitful means, learned counsel for the petitioners could not satisfy me as to what prejudice the petitioners suffered on account of non supply of the enquiry report. 11. In the facts and circumstances of this case where the petitioners got the compassionate appointment by deceitful means, learned counsel for the petitioners could not satisfy me as to what prejudice the petitioners suffered on account of non supply of the enquiry report. (3) Managing Director ECIL v. B. Karunakar ( 1993(4) SCC 727 ) was the case where their Lordships of the Supreme Court approved the conclusion arrived at by the High Court and indicated that '.since there is no adequate explanation offered by the petitioner, the High Court came to conclusion that though the copy of the report was not supplied, on the facts, as no prejudice was proved, it was not a case warranting interference." 12. It is not with the domain of this court to analyse the evidence so as to arrive at a finding that the charges have not been proved. I have closely scrutinised the impugned orders. I do not find any unconstitutionality in them. 13. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petitions, they are accordingly dismissed. No costs.Petition dismissed. *******