Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11 February 2011 on the file of first respondent denying the petitioner appointment on compassionate basis. Summary of facts: 2. The petitioner is the son of Tmt. B. Yasodha, who was a Junior Assistant in the office of the commissioner of police, Coimbatore. She died in a road accident on 14 April 1995. The father of the petitioner was also seriously injured in the said accident. The petitioner was 11 years, as on the date on which his mother died and father sustained grievous injury. The father has relinquished his job on account of his bad health condition. 3. The petitioner on attaining the age of 18 years submitted an application for compassionate appointment before the third respondent. The third respondent forwarded the proposal to the second respondent along with a letter of recommendation. The second respondent in turn recommended the case of the petitioner to the first respondent for appointing him on compassionate ground as Junior Assistant. The first respondent by letter dated 28 June 2004 informed the second respondent that there was a ban on recruitment and wanted the petitioner to review the application after lifting the ban. The ban order was lifted in the year 2006. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner again made a representation to the respondents to consider his case for appointment. The third respondent vide communication dated 22 January 2009 informed the petitioner that the issue is pending consideration before the first respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.25571 of 2010. This Court directed the first respondent to consider the application. The issue was thereafter considered by the first respondent. The first respondent rejected the claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that the father of the petitioner was employed on permanent basis in a private company and he was drawing a salary of Rs.6154/-. The first respondent on the basis of the report submitted by the Inspector (intelligence) dated 30 April 1999 turned down the prayer for compassionate appointment. The said order is challenged in the present writ petition. 5. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the father of petitioner was a permanent employee in L.M.W. Company getting a monthly salary of Rs.6154/-. He left the job during September 2001 accepting a sum of Rs.2,13,046.62 as final settlement. The said order is challenged in the present writ petition. 5. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the father of petitioner was a permanent employee in L.M.W. Company getting a monthly salary of Rs.6154/-. He left the job during September 2001 accepting a sum of Rs.2,13,046.62 as final settlement. According to the Commissioner of Police, the petitioner was not in indigent circumstances and therefore, his application for appointment was rightly rejected. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the father of the petitioner was also injured in the accident in question and as such, he discontinued his employment. The application for compassionate appointment was rejected solely on the ground that the father of the petitioner was employed. The so called enquiry was conducted in a discreet manner without notice to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, in case the petitioner was given notice he would have been in a position to explain that his father was not gainfully employed. The learned counsel contended that the application submitted by the petitioner on 17 March 2004 was kept pending under the pretext that there was a ban order. The application was recommended by all the authorities and ultimately, by way of the impugned order the request was rejected. According to the learned counsel, the materials collected by the third respondent through the Inspector (Intelligence) by resorting to a secret procedure caused substantial prejudice to the petitioner. The learned counsel maintained that the father of the petitioner was not employed and as such, the rejection of the application on that ground is liable to be set aside. 7. The learned Additional Government Pleader supported the order passed by the first respondent. Analysis: 8. The claim for appointment of compassionate ground was on account of the untimely death of the mother of the petitioner in a road accident on 14 April 1995. The petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition disclosed the fact that his father was originally employed and he was forced to relinquish the employment on account of the injuries sustained by him. The petitioner after attaining majority submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 17 March 2004. It is a matter of record that the Commissioner of Police recommended the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The petitioner after attaining majority submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 17 March 2004. It is a matter of record that the Commissioner of Police recommended the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. In fact, even the Director General of Police has recommended his case and requested the first respondent to offer compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The first respondent thereafter appears to have conducted a discreet enquiry through the Inspector (Intelligence). The discreet enquiry report submitted by the Intelligence Inspector was the basis for denying compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 9. According to the Commissioner of Police, the father of the petitioner was a permanent employee in L.M.W. Company and was getting a monthly salary of Rs.6154/-. Even according to the Commissioner of Police, the father of the petitioner voluntarily retired from service during September 2001. It is therefore clear that even before the application submitted by the petitioner for compassionate appointment, his father got retirement. It is not as if, the respondents have conducted enquiry with notice to the petitioner, with respect to the financial condition of the family. The enquiry by the Inspector (Intelligence) was a discreet enquiry conducted behind the back of petitioner. The so called report submitted by the enquiry officer was taken as the basic material to reject the application. 10. The death in question was in the year 1995. The financial condition of the family as on the date of death should have been considered by the respondents. In case, the petitioner was given notice, he would have been in a position to demonstrate that the father was not having independent income so as to maintain the family. However, no such effort was taken by the first respondent before passing the impugned order. Therefore, I am of the view that the issue requires fresh consideration by the respondents. Result: 11. The impugned order dated 11 February 2011 is quashed. The matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The first respondent is directed to consider the application in the light of the recommendations made by respondents 2 and 3 on 2 June 2004 and 7 May 2004 respectively. In case the first respondent is relying on any information collected by conducting discreet enquiry, necessarily all those materials should be furnished to the petitioner and he should be given an opportunity to submit his response. In case the first respondent is relying on any information collected by conducting discreet enquiry, necessarily all those materials should be furnished to the petitioner and he should be given an opportunity to submit his response. The first respondent is further directed to conclude the matter with in a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above.