Judgment 1. This writ application has been filed against an order dated 27th November, 2000, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, holding Circuit Bench at Ranchi, whereby the order of termination passed against private respondent no. 1 has been set aside and direction has been issued to post him on his previous post of Upper Division Clerk which he was holding prior to his termination. 2. The factual matrix of this case are that the father of respondent no. 1 was in employment in Income Tax Department. He took retirement due to his illness and sought compassionate appointment of respondent no. 1. It is a fact that prior to that the two brothers of respondent no. 1 and sons of Damodar Thakur were already in employment in the Income Tax Department itself. Neither in the application filed by the father of respondent no. 1 nor in the form submitted by respondent no. 1 any disclosure was made about employment of two persons, i.e., two brothers of respondent no. 1 in the same Department. 3. The concerned authority considered the application of respondent no. 1 and appointed him on a purely temporary basis with a clear stipulation that his appointment is provisional and temporary and liable for termination at any point of time. In the proforma (application filed for appointment) it was clearly mentioned that any wrong information or suppression of fact would disentitle from employment. 4. After the appointment of respondent no. 1 an anonymous letter was received in the office of Commissioner of Income Tax that respondent no. 1 has obtained appointment by suppression of fact about employment of his two brothers in the Department. The Commissioner ordered for enquiry and after coming to know of the said fact a show cause notice was issued to respondent no. 1. In the show cause filed by respondent no. 1 and also the application filed by the respondent no. 1 he admitted the fact of employment of the two persons of the concerned family in the Department. Thereafter the impugned order of termination was passed which was challenged before the Tribunal. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India, in our view, rightly submitted that the appointment of respondent no. 1 was obtained by suppression of fact which is nothing but a glaring fraud committed by him and his father. Thereafter the impugned order of termination was passed which was challenged before the Tribunal. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India, in our view, rightly submitted that the appointment of respondent no. 1 was obtained by suppression of fact which is nothing but a glaring fraud committed by him and his father. The very object of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family due to untimely demise of a bread earner. It is not a mode of appointment reserved for the family of the ex-employee. When two brothers of the respondent no. 1 were already in employment, there was no question of giving employment to respondent no. 1 on compassionate ground. The decision of the Supreme Court, relied upon by the Member of the Tribunal, has no relevancy with regard to the factual aspect of the matter. The settled law on the point is that when bread earner is available in the family, the compassionate appointment should not be given to any other member of the family. The mere assertion at the subsequent stage, in reply to the show cause issued, by the respondent no. 1 that the other brothers are separate, without any material to support, could not be a ground to come to a conclusion that the appointment on compassionate ground of respondent no. 1 was a valid one. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and uphold the decision of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, terminating the services of respondent no. 1. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents took a preliminary objection as to maintainability of this case on the ground that the matter has been decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi and this Court has no jurisdiction. 7. We do not find any substance in the said submission for the simple reason that the Central Administrative Tribunal has not been established at Ranchi. it is estab-lished at Patna only and it holds Circuit Court at Ranchi and as such this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench though it has heard at Circuit Court at Ranchi. This apart the order of termination was passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna and as such the Central Administrative Tribunal at Patna was competent to hear the matter. This apart the order of termination was passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna and as such the Central Administrative Tribunal at Patna was competent to hear the matter. We do not find any merit in this submission which is, accordingly, rejected. 8. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.