JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Adarsh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Awadhesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No.1 & 2 as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3. 2. Petitioner through present writ petition has assailed the order dated 30.12.2022 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Basti, whereby services of the petitioner have been terminated. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that mother of the petitioner Smt. Tilakraji Devi, while working on the post of Head Mistress in Junior Basic School Jagdishpur, Block Harraiya, District Basti, died in harness on 18.10.2000. Petitioner, after death of his mother, submitted an application for his compassionate appointment and along with the application, he also submitted affidavits given by his father and brother. In the affidavit given by the petitioner's father, it was categorically mentioned that he was working as Head Master in Primary School Khamariya Sujat, Block Harraiya, District Basti. 4. The Selection Committee headed by the District Basic Education Officer, Basti considered the application for compassionate appointment filed by the petitioner and after scrutinizing the documents filed along with the application, the District Basic Education Officer, Basti issued an order on 21.7.2003, whereby petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher (untrained grade) in Primary School Hahi, Block Harraiya, District Basti. 5. Petitioner pursuant to his appointment order dated 21.7.2003 submitted joining in the primary school on 22.7.2003 and started discharging duties attached to his post. Petitioner also started getting salary from the State exchequer with effect from 22.7.2003. Later on, petitioner completed his in-service B.T.C. Training Course in the year 2005 and thereafter, the District Basic Education Officer, Basti passed an order on 27.9.2005, whereby petitioner was granted pay-scale of the post of the trained Assistant Teacher. 6. Petitioner since the date of his initial appointment i.e. since 22.7.2003 continued to perform duties of his post and since his work and conduct was excellent, as such, the District Basic Education Officer, Basti vide order dated 30.12.2010 promoted the petitioner to the post of Head Master of Junior Basic School, Revradas II, Block Harraiya, District Basti. 7. On 28.2.2013 one Mr. 7. On 28.2.2013 one Mr. Sudesh Bhaskar, resident of village Khamariya Sujat, Block Harraiya, District Basti lodged a complaint to the District Magistrate, Basti thereby allegation was levelled that compassionate appointment of the petitioner is against the provisions made in the Government Order dated 4.9.2000, wherein it is provided that if the surviving spouse of the deceased teacher is in government service, then his dependent will not be entitled for compassionate appointment, whereas at the time of compassionate appointment of the petitioner, his father was working on the post of Head Master in a primary school at District Basti. Mr. Sudesh Bhaskar through the aforesaid complaint requested the District Magistrate, Basti to cancel the compassionate appointment of the petitioner. The District Magistrate, Basti on the aforesaid complaint of Mr. Sudesh Bhaskar, directed the District Basic Education Officer, Basti to submit a report. The District Basic Education Officer, Basti vide his letter dated 18.5.2013 submitted a report to the District Magistrate, Basti, wherein it was categorically mentioned that at the time of compassionate appointment of the petitioner, disclosure was made by his father that he was working on the post of the Head Master in Primary School Khamariya Sujat, Block Harraiya, District Basti and only after considering all the facts and circumstances, the petitioner was offered compassionate appointment and further petitioner has also been promoted to the post of the Head Master and therefore, after lapse of more than 10 years, now there is no justification to entertain the complaint of Mr. Sudeshh Bhaskar in respect of validity of the compassionate appointment of the petitioner. The District Basic Education Officer, Basti in his letter dated 18.5.2013 also categorically mentioned that the complaint lodged by Mr. Sudesh Bhaskar may be rejected. 8. Thereafter, it appears that the District Magistrate Basti was satisfied with the aforesaid report submitted by the District Basic Education Officer, Basti, as such, no further action was taken against the petitioner and for all practical purposes, the complaint lodged by Mr. Sudesh Bhaskar was found to be baseless. 9. Since compassionate appointment of the petitioner on the complaint lodged by Mr. Sudesh Bhaskar was not disturbed by the District Magistrate, Basti, as such, Mr. Sudesh Bhaskar was found to be baseless. 9. Since compassionate appointment of the petitioner on the complaint lodged by Mr. Sudesh Bhaskar was not disturbed by the District Magistrate, Basti, as such, Mr. Sudesh Bhaskar filed a Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) No.26470 of 2014 and the said PIL was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.5.2014 on two grounds, firstly that appointment of the petitioner was made nearly 10 years ago and secondly that Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable in respect of a service matter and petitioner has not disclosed his locus satisfactorily. 10. The aforesaid Mr. Sudesh Bhaskar did not challenge the order dated 13.5.2014 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) No.26470 of 2014 and in the year 2021, he lodged a complaint on I.G.R.S. Portal of the State Government and on the basis of said complaint, the District Basic Education Officer, Basti wrote a letter dated 7.9.2021 to the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj, wherein he mentioned that the fact in respect of employment of the father of the petitioner was disclosed at the time of compassionate appointment of the petitioner and the compassionate appointment was made by the then District Basic Education Officer, Basti and therefore, it is not proper that the officer of the same rank may take decision in the matter, as such, guidance be given in the matter. The District Basic Education Officer, Basti thereafter passed an order on 28.9.2022 whereby payment of salary to the petitioner was stopped till further orders. The Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj vide his letter dated 8.10.2022 directed the District Basic Education Officer, Basti that since appointment of the petitioner is contrary to the provisions made in the Government Order dated 4.9.2000, therefore action may be taken by the District Basic Education Office, Basti in accordance with law. 11. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid orders dated 28.9.2022 and 8.10.2022 by filing Writ-A No.17099 of 2022 and this Court after considering the entire material available on record, set aside the order dated 28.9.2022 whereby payment of salary to the petitioner was stopped and further directed the petitioner to cooperate in the proceedings initiated against him. 12. 11. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid orders dated 28.9.2022 and 8.10.2022 by filing Writ-A No.17099 of 2022 and this Court after considering the entire material available on record, set aside the order dated 28.9.2022 whereby payment of salary to the petitioner was stopped and further directed the petitioner to cooperate in the proceedings initiated against him. 12. The District Basic Education Officer, Basti issued a charge-sheet against the petitioner containing five charges in respect of his compassionate appointment and petitioner was required to furnish his reply to the charges levelled in the charge-sheet within a period of 15 days. In the charge-sheet dated 28.10.2022, it was mentioned that the said charge-sheet has been issued as per the procedure prescribed under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and further the main charge against the petitioner was that his compassionate appointment was contrary to the provisions of the Government Order dated 4.9.2000 as on the date of his compassionate appointment, his father was working on the post of Head Master in a primary school at District Basti. Petitioner immediately after receiving the charge-sheet submitted his detailed reply on 14.11.2022 wherein he categorically pointed out that at the time of compassionate appointment of the petitioner, it was properly disclosed before the concerned authority that father of the petitioner was working as Head Master in a primary school at District Basti as father of the petitioner at the time of compassionate appointment of the petitioner filed an affidavit before the authorities of the department wherein the said fact was categorically disclosed. Petitioner in his reply categorically mentioned that the complaint lodged by Mr. Sudesh Bhaskar was earlier enquired into by the District Basic Education Officer, Basti and he submitted a report to the District Magistrate, Basti wherein he categorically pointed out that there was no concealment of facts by the petitioner rather it was disclosed to the concerned authorities that the father of the petitioner was working as Head Master in a primary school and therefore, the compassionate appointment of the petitioner, after elapse of about 10 years cannot be faulted. 13. 13. Though the charge-sheet against the petitioner was issued as per the procedure prescribed under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 but after submission of the reply by the petitioner, no oral inquiry has been conducted i.e. no date, time and place for holding inquiry was fixed and even no inquiry report was prepared. 14. The District Basic Education Officer, Basti on 22.11.2022 issued a show cause notice, wherein charge-sheet dated 28.10.2022 and reply of the petitioner dated 15.11.2022 have been discussed but in respect of petitioner’s reply dated 15.11.2022 only this much has been said that reply has not been found admissible in the light of the departmental rules and therefore, the show cause notice is being issued. The District Basic Education Officer, Basti in the aforesaid show cause notice dated 22.11.2022 has considered the fact finding report submitted by a two-member Committee prior to issuance of charge-sheet on 28.10.2022 and on that basis, has required the petitioner to show cause as to why the services of the petitioner may not be terminated and legal action may not be initiated against the petitioner. Petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the aforesaid show cause notice dated 22.11.2022 on 12.12.2022. 15. The District Basic Education Officer, Basti has passed the final order on 30.12.2022 wherein past history of the case has been recorded and it has been stated that the petitioner has submitted reply to the charge-sheet dated 28.10.2022 on 14.11.2022 but since his reply was not found admissible, as such under the provisions of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 22.11.2022 and further the reply given by the petitioner to the show cause notice has not been found satisfactory, therefore the charge that petitioner’s compassionate appointment is contrary to the provisions of the Government order dated 4.9.2000 is found proved and thereby services of the petitioner have been terminated by cancelling his compassionate appointment. 16. 16. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that at the time of initial appointment of the petitioner, affidavit of the petitioner’s father was filed in which he categorically stated that he was working on the post of Head Master in Primary School Khamariya Sujat, Block Harraiya, District Basti and therefore, it is apparent that there was no suppression of facts on the part of the petitioner at the time of his compassionate appointment, as such, even if some provisions of the Government Order dated 4.9.2000 were not taken into account and competent authority offered compassionate appointment to the petitioner, the same cannot be nullified after elapse of about 20 years. 17. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has also argued that the complaint lodged by Mr. Sudesh Bhaskar was considered and a detailed reply was submitted by the District Basic Education Officer, Basti vide his letter dated 18.5.2013 to the District Magistrate, Basti, wherein a categorical finding was recorded that petitioner did not suppress any material fact at the time of his compassionate appointment rather his father in the affidavit candidly disclosed that he was working as Head Master in a primary school and thereby the District Basic Education Officer, Basti in his letter dated 18.5.2023 said that since there was no fault attributable to the petitioner in his compassionate appointment, therefore after elapse of about 10 years, there is no occasion for disturbing the petitioner’s appointment. The District Magistrate, Basti pursuant to the aforesaid report submitted by the District Basic Education Officer, Basti vide his letter dated 18.5.2013 did not take any action and thereby it can easily be inferred that the departmental authorities did not find any illegality committed by the petitioner and therefore, his compassionate appointment was not disturbed but now the District Basic Education Officer, Basti has taken complete U-turn and has passed order dated 30.12.2022 whereby services of the petitioner have been terminated by cancelling his compassionate appointment, as such, the impugned order dated 30.12.2022 cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 18. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has also vehemently argued that complainant Mr. 18. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has also vehemently argued that complainant Mr. Sudesh Bhaskar when failed to disturb the compassionate appointment of the petitioner, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.26470 of 2014 and the Division Bench of this Court, while taking note of fact that petitioner’s appointment was made 10 years ago and Public Interest Litigation in respect of service matter is not maintainable, dismissed the petition vide order dated 13.5.2014, then now after elapse of 20 years the District Basic Education Officer, Basti, while passing the impugned order dated 30.12.2022 has in fact ignored the said order dated 13.5.2014 passed by the Division Bench of this Court and therefore, the impugned order dated 30.12.2022 is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 19. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has also invited attention of this Court that the District Basic Education Officer, Basti started disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner as per the procedure prescribed under the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and issued a charge-sheet on 28.10.2022 and the petitioner also submitted his reply to the said charge sheet but thereafter, no procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1999 for holding inquiry and passing the punishment order, has been followed and the District Basic Education Officer, Basti has staightaway passed the impugned order dated 30.12.2022 wherein only this much has been said that the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice, has not been found satisfactory and thereby has terminated services of the petitioner by cancelling his compassionate appointment. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that it is well settled proposition of law through catena of judgments of this court as well as of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that once the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated, then the procedure prescribed under the Rules in respect of disciplinary inquiry and punishment order ought to be followed stricto sensu, whereas in the present case, no inquiry has been held by fixing date, time and place for holding inquiry, no evidence has been recorded during the inquiry and further even inquiry report has not been submitted, as such it is apparent that the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 and Rule 9 of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 has not been followed at all, therefore, the impugned order dated 30.12.2022 cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 20. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court towards the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Zamil Ahmed vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in 2016 (2) ESC 242 (SC) and has argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has held that once there was no concealment of facts on the part of government servant at the time of his initial appointment, then after 20 years of his appointment, the same cannot be nullified only on the ground that as per the State policy, the said appointment could not have been made. 21. 21. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has emphatically argued that essence of time is vital in those cases where it is admitted that the candidate did not play any fraud or concealed the facts for securing his appointment, therefore after a elapse of long time, the said appointment cannot be nullified only on the ground that the authorities of the department, while making appointment, were not vigilant to see that the said appointment under the provisions of the relevant Government Order could not have been made and in the present case, it is admitted by the department that petitioner has neither suppressed any fact nor played any fraud to secure his compassionate appointment rather all the relevant facts were disclosed, therefore after elapse of 20 years from the date of initial appointment of the petitioner, his appointment cannot be nullified on the ground that he was not entitled for compassionate appointment as his father at that point of time was working as Head Master in a primary school, therefore the impugned order dated 30.12.2022 is absolutely unsustainable in the eyes of law. It has further been submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that it has also to be seen by this court that department of Basic Education did not take any objection to the appointment of the petitioner and it was only a private person who lodged a complaint and when the said complaint did not find favour of the departmental authorities, he filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), that too was dismissed taking into note of the fact that petitioner’s appointment was made 10 years back, then there is no occasion for the District Basic Education Officer, Basti to cancel the appointment of the petitioner on behest of the private complainant. 22. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has thus concluded his arguments and has submitted that the impugned order dated 30.12.2022 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Basti, whereby petitioner’s services have been terminated by cancelling his appointment, is unsustainable in the eyes of law and therefore, is liable to be quashed by this Court. 23. 22. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has thus concluded his arguments and has submitted that the impugned order dated 30.12.2022 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Basti, whereby petitioner’s services have been terminated by cancelling his appointment, is unsustainable in the eyes of law and therefore, is liable to be quashed by this Court. 23. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the respondents have submitted that the State Government has issued a Government Order on 4.9.2000, wherein it has categorically been provided that if the surviving spouse of the deceased teacher is in government service, then dependent of the deceased teacher is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Since on the date of death of petitioner's mother, his father was working as Head Master in Primary School Khamariya Sujat, Block Harraiya, District Basti, therefore in view of the provisions of the aforesaid Government Order dated 4.9.2000, petitioner was not entitled for compassionate appointment and, as such, the appointment of the petitioner made in the year 2003 is void ab initio and his services have rightly been terminated by the District Basic Education Officer, Basti by cancelling his appointment. 24. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents have further submitted that appointment of the petitioner was dehors to the provisions of the Government Order dated 4.9.2000, therefore the District Basic Education Officer, Basti issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner and after taking his reply, he issued a show cause notice to the petitioner to which he submitted reply and thereafter, the District Basic Education Officer, Basti has passed the order dated 30.12.2022 whereby petitioner’s services have been terminated by cancelling his appointment, therefore there is neither any illegality nor infirmity in the impugned order dated 30.12.2022. 25. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents have vehemently argued that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been dealt with by this court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in number of cases and it has been held that if initial appointment was made contrary to the provisions made in the rules, then the said appointment is void ab initio and same can be nullified even after elapse of considerable length of time. 26. 26. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents have relied upon following judgments:- (i) Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jainendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2012 (8) SCC 748 . (ii) Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another vs. Shashank Goswami and another, reported in 2012 (11) SCC 307 . (iii) Judgment and order dated 31.8.2000 passed by High Court in Writ Petition No.19919 of 1993 (Ramu vs. Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Mirzapur). (iv) Judgment and order dated 1.10.2021 passed by High Court in Writ-A No.5721 of 2020 (Laxmikant vs. State of U.P. and others). (v) Judgment and order dated 20.9.2022 passed by the Division Bench of High Court in Writ-A No.7768 of 2022 (Raghav Paliwal vs. State of U.P. and others). (vi) Judgment and order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the Division Bench of High Court in Special Appeal No.1601 of 2012 (Narendra Kumar Upadhyay vs. State of UP and others). (vii) Judgment and order dated 6.2.2014 passed by the Division Bench of High Court in Special Appeal No.356 of 2012 (Shiv Kumar Dubey and others vs. State of U.P. and others). 27. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents on the basis of the law laid down in the aforementioned cases have concluded their arguments by submitting that there is neither any illegality nor infirmity in the impugned order dated 30.12.2022 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Basti and therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 28. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 29. I find that after the death of mother of the petitioner, he applied for compassionate appointment. Petitioner along with his application also filed affidavits given by his father and brother. Father of the petitioner in his affidavit categorically stated that he was working on the post of Headmaster in Primary School, Khamariya Shujat, Block, Harraiya, District Basti. I also find that the then District Basic Education Officer, Basti after considering the entire material available before him issued appointment order dated 21.07.2003 whereby petitioner was appointed as untrained Assistant Teacher on compassionate ground. I also find that the then District Basic Education Officer, Basti after considering the entire material available before him issued appointment order dated 21.07.2003 whereby petitioner was appointed as untrained Assistant Teacher on compassionate ground. State Government has issued a Government Order on 04.09.2000 wherein it has been provided that if the surviving spouse of the deceased teacher is in government service then dependent of the deceased teacher is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 30. The aforesaid government order was very well available at the time of compassionate appointment of the petitioner and the then District Basic Education Officer after considering the entire material available on record appointed petitioner on the post of untrained Assistant Teacher on compassionate ground. 31. Now after elapse of 19 years, petitioner’s services have been terminated by cancelling his appointment from the date of his initial appointment. 32. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has relied upon judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jainendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others 2012 (8) SCC 748 and has submitted that in the said judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the law that if the material facts have been concealed at the time of initial appointment, then on disclosure of the said facts, the appointment can be cancelled. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is extracted as under : “29. As noted by us, all the above decisions were rendered by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of two Judges and having bestowed our serious consideration to the issue, we consider that while dealing with such an issue, the Court will have to bear in mind the various cardinal principals before granting any relief to the aggrieved party, namely: 29.1. Fraudulently obtained orders of appointment could be legitimately treated as voidable at the option of the employer or could be recalled by the employer and in such cases merely because the respondent employee has continued in service for a number of years, on the basis of such fraudulently obtained employment, cannot get any equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer. 29.2. 29.2. Verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to the post under the State and on account of his antecedents the appointing authority if finds it not desirable to appoint a person to a disciplined force can it be said to be unwarranted. 29.3. When appointment was procured by a person on the basis of forged documents, it would amount to misrepresentation and fraud on the employer and, therefore, it would create no equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer while resorting to termination without holding any inquiry. 29.4. A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service and the employer, having regard to the nature of employment as well as other aspects, has the discretion to terminate his services. 29.5. The purpose of calling for information regarding involvement in any criminal case or detention or conviction is for the purpose of verification of the character/antecedents at the time of recruitment and suppression of such material information will has a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the candidate in relation to his continuity in service. 29.6. The person who suppressed the material information and/or gives false information cannot claim any right for appointment or continuity in service. 29.7. The standard expected of a person intended to serve in uniformed service is quite distinct from other services and, therefore, any deliberate statement or omission regarding a vital information can be seriously viewed and the ultimate decision of the appointing authority cannot be faulted. 29.8. An employee on probation can be discharged from service or may be refused employment on the ground of suppression of material information or making false statement relating to his involvement in the criminal case, conviction or detention, even if ultimately he was acquitted of the said case, inasmuch as such a situation would make a person undesirable or unsuitable for the post. 29.9. An employee in the uniformed service presupposes a higher level of integrity as such a person is expected to uphold the law and on the contrary such a service born in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated. 29.10. 29.9. An employee in the uniformed service presupposes a higher level of integrity as such a person is expected to uphold the law and on the contrary such a service born in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated. 29.10. The authorities entrusted with the responsibility of appointing constables, are under duty to verify the antecedents of a candidate to find out whether he is suitable for the post of a constable and so long as the candidate has not been acquitted in the criminal case, he cannot be held to be suitable for appointment to the post of constable.” 33. I find that the aforesaid judgement relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents is of no help to the respondents as in the case of petitioner, it is admitted fact on the part of the respondents that there was no suppression of relevant facts by the petitioner at the time of his compassionate appointment. 34. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents have relied upon judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another vs. Shashank Goswami and another 2012 (11) SCC 307 and have submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the law that appointment on compassionate basis should be made strictly in accordance with the prevailing compassionate scheme and since petitioner’s compassionate appointment is contrary to the provisions of Government Order dated 04.09.2000, therefore, said appointment has rightly been cancelled. 35. I find that in the aforesaid case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, candidate was denied compassionate appointment and candidate challenged the order whereby his candidature for compassionate appointment was rejected and then Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgement has recorded a finding that the compassionate appointment can be offered only in accordance with the rules, regulations and administrative instructions whereas in the present case, petitioner was appointed on compassionate basis in the year 2003 and he has been allowed to continue in service for about 19 years and thereafter his compassionate appointment has been cancelled, as such on the facts of the present case, the aforesaid judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not applicable. 36. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents have relied upon judgment and order dated 31.08.2000 rendered by this court in Writ Petition No. 19919 of 1993 (Ramu Vs. 36. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents have relied upon judgment and order dated 31.08.2000 rendered by this court in Writ Petition No. 19919 of 1993 (Ramu Vs. Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Mirzapur) and have submitted that in the said judgement, this Court has recorded a finding that even if any person has illegally been appointed by the respondents under the Dying in Harness Rules, such appointment cannot confer any right on the candidate to claim appointment or to continue in service. I find that petitioner of the aforesaid case was appointed on 10.10.1991 on compassionate ground and his services were terminated on 12.05.1993 i.e. in less than two years whereas in the present writ petition, there was no suppression of material facts on the part of petitioner and he has been allowed to continue his service for about 19 years, therefore, facts of the present case are entirely different, as such, in the given facts and circumstances, judgement and order dated 31.08.2000 rendered by this Court is inapplicable. 37. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have relied upon judgement and order dated 1.10.2021 rendered by this Court in Writ-A No. 5721 of 2020 (Laxmikant vs. State of U.P. and others). I find that in the aforesaid writ petition, petitioner challenged the order by which his claim for compassionate appointment was rejected whereas petitioner of the present writ petition was appointed on compassionate ground in the year 2003 and has continued in service for about 19 years, therefore, on the facts of the present case, aforesaid judgement and order dated 1.10.2021 is inapplicable. 38. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents have relied upon judgement and order dated 20.09.2022 rendered by this Court in Writ-A No. 7768 of 2022 (Raghav Paliwal vs. State of U.P. and others). I find that the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition challenged the order whereby his case for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected whereas in the case of petitioner, his compassionate compassionate appointment has been cancelled after about 19 years of his appointment, as such on the facts, aforesaid judgement and order dated 20.09.2022 is inapplicable. 39. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents have relied upon judgement rendered by Division Bench of this Court on 22.10.2021 in Special Appeal No. 1601 of 2012 (Narendra Kumar Upadhyay vs. State of UP and others). 39. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents have relied upon judgement rendered by Division Bench of this Court on 22.10.2021 in Special Appeal No. 1601 of 2012 (Narendra Kumar Upadhyay vs. State of UP and others). I find that in the case before Division Bench of this court, teacher died in harness on 07.07.1991 and by concealment of material fact, compassionate appointment was obtained on 31.03.2010 and thereafter the said appointment was cancelled on 14.04.2012, as such, in the facts and circumstances of that case, Division Bench of this court has laid down law that where compassionate appointment has been obtained after 19 years from the date of death by concealing material fact, the same can be cancelled, whereas in the present case, petitioner has not suppressed any material facts and he was appointed on compassionate ground in the year 2003 and he continued to wok for 19 years, as such in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the aforesaid judgement and order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the Division Bench of this Court is inapplicable. 40. Lastly learned counsels appearing for the respondents have relied upon the Full Bench judgement of this Court rendered in the Special Appeal No. 356 of 2012 (Shiv Kumar Dubey and others vs. State of U.P. and others). I find that the Full Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case was considering as to in what manner, appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 should be made. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgement rendered by the Division Bench of this court is extracted as under : 29. We now proceed to formulate the principles which must govern compassionate appointment in pursuance of Dying in Harness Rules: (i) A provision for compassionate appointment is an exception to the principle that there must be an equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The exception to be constitutionally valid has to be carefully structured and implemented in order to confine compassionate appointment to only those situations which subserve the basic object and purpose which is sought to be achieved; (ii) There is no general or vested right to compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment can be claimed only where a scheme or rules provide for such appointment. Compassionate appointment can be claimed only where a scheme or rules provide for such appointment. Where such a provision is made in an administrative scheme or statutory rules, compassionate appointment must fall strictly within the scheme or, as the case may be, the rules; (iii) The object and purpose of providing compassionate appointment is to enable the dependent members of the family of a deceased employee to tide over the immediate financial crisis caused by the death of the bread-earner; (iv) In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family; its liabilities, the terminal benefits received by the family; the age, dependency and marital status of its members, together with the income from any other sources of employment; (v) Where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and this would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the authorities in determining as to whether a case for the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out; (vi) Rule 5 mandates that ordinarily, an application for compassionate appointment must be made within five years of the date of death of the deceased employee. The power conferred by the first proviso is a discretion to relax the period in a case of undue hardship and for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner; (vii) The burden lies on the applicant, where there is a delay in making an application within the period of five years to establish a case on the basis of reasons and a justification supported by documentary and other evidence. It is for the State Government after considering all the facts to take an appropriate decision. The power to relax is in the nature of an exception and is conditioned by the existence of objective considerations to the satisfaction of the government; (viii) Provisions for the grant of compassionate appointment do not constitute a reservation of a post in favour of a member of the family of the deceased employee. Hence, there is no general right which can be asserted to the effect that a member of the family who was a minor at the time of death would be entitled to claim compassionate appointment upon attaining majority. Hence, there is no general right which can be asserted to the effect that a member of the family who was a minor at the time of death would be entitled to claim compassionate appointment upon attaining majority. Where the rules provide for a period of time within which an application has to be made, the operation of the rule is not suspended during the minority of a member of the family. 41. The aforesaid judgement rendered by Full Bench of this Court is of no help to the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the present case as in the present case, petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground in the year 2003 and after 19 years, his appointment has been cancelled. 42. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Md. Zamil Ahmed v. State of Bihar, (2016) 12 SCC 342 and has submitted that facts of the aforesaid case before Hon’ble Supreme Court are identical to that of the facts of the present case before this Court. 43. Md. Jamil Ahmed, appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was appointed on 02.05.1991 on compassionate ground and after elapse of 15 years, his appointment was cancelled on the ground that in view of the rules applicable for compassionate appointment, he could not have been appointed on compassionate basis. 44. Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering entire facts and circumstances of the case has categorically held that such appointments cannot be cancelled after elapse of 15 years. The relevant portion of the judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Md. Zamil Ahmed (Supra) is extracted as under:- “10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 11. Keeping in view the peculiar undisputed facts of the case and having regard to the totality of the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the State was not justified in terminating the appellant's services. In other words, the ground on which the appellant's services were terminated by the State after a period of 15 years of the appellant's appointment does not appear to be well founded. This we say for the following reasons: 11.1. Firstly, the appellant and wife of the deceased at the time of seeking compassionate appointment did not conceal any fact nor filed any false or incorrect document/declaration. This we say for the following reasons: 11.1. Firstly, the appellant and wife of the deceased at the time of seeking compassionate appointment did not conceal any fact nor filed any false or incorrect document/declaration. On the other hand, both of them disclosed their true family relations and conditions prevailing in the deceased's family on affidavit. 11.2. Secondly, the appellant, who is the brother of the deceased, undertook to maintain the family of the deceased in the event of his securing the compassionate appointment and he accordingly also gave such undertaking to the State. 11.3. Thirdly, their was no one in the family of the deceased to claim compassionate appointment except the appellant who, as mentioned above, was the close relative of the deceased, i.e. real younger brother and used to live with the deceased. He was otherwise eligible to claim such appointment being major, educated and only male member in the family. 11.4. Fourthly, the appellant after securing the employment throughout maintained the family of the deceased in all respects for the last more than 15 years and he is continuing to do so. 12. In the light of aforementioned reasons, which rightly persuaded the State to grant compassionate appointment to the appellant, we do not find any justification on the part of the State to dig out the appellant's case after 15 years of his appointment and terminate his services on the ground that as per the State policy, the appellant did not fall within the definition of the expression “dependant of deceased” to claim compassionate appointment. 13. The fact that the appellant was the younger brother of the deceased was within the knowledge of the State. Similarly, the State was aware that the brother does not fall within the definition of “dependant” at the relevant time and still the State authorities obtained the undertaking from the appellant that he would maintain the family of the deceased once given the appointment. 14. In our considered view, the aforesaid facts would clearly show that it was a conscious decision taken by the State for giving an appointment to the appellant for the benefit of the family members of the deceased who were facing financial hardship due to sudden demise of their bread-earner. The appellant being the only close relative of the deceased could be given the appointment in the circumstances prevailing in the family. The appellant being the only close relative of the deceased could be given the appointment in the circumstances prevailing in the family. In our view, it was a right decision taken by the State as a welfare State to help the family of the deceased at the time of need of the family. 15. In these circumstances, we are of the view that there was no justification on the part of the State to wake up after the lapse of 15 years and terminate the services of the appellant on such ground. In any case, we are of the view that whether it was a conscious decision of the State to give appointment to the appellant as we have held above or a case of mistake on the part of the State in giving appointment to the appellant which now as per the State was contrary to the policy as held by the learned Single Judge, the State by their own conduct having condoned their lapse due to passage of time of 15 years, it was too late on the part of the State to have raised such ground for cancelling the appellant's appointment and terminating his services. It was more so because the appellant was not responsible for making any false declaration nor he suppressed any material fact for securing the appointment. The State was, therefore, not entitled to take advantage of their own mistake if they felt it to be so. The position would have been different if the appellant had committed some kind of fraud or manipulation or suppression of material fact for securing the appointment. As mentioned above such was not the case of the State. 16. It is for this reason, we are of the view that action on the part of welfare State in terminating the appellant's service on such ground cannot be countenanced. We, therefore, disapprove the action taken by the State. 17. In the light of foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and in consequence allow the writ petition filed by the appellant (writ petitioner) and quash the appellant's termination order dated 23-6-2005 (Annexure P-4 of SLP). 18. We, therefore, disapprove the action taken by the State. 17. In the light of foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and in consequence allow the writ petition filed by the appellant (writ petitioner) and quash the appellant's termination order dated 23-6-2005 (Annexure P-4 of SLP). 18. As a consequence thereof, the respondent State is directed to reinstate the appellant in service with all consequential benefits such as payment of full back wages payable from the date of termination (23-6-2005) till the date of reinstatement in service. The appellant is also entitled to claim his seniority and notional promotions as per the rules. It be fixed accordingly. 19. Let the appellant be reinstated in service within a month as an outer limit and the arrears of back wages, as directed, be paid to the appellant within three months by the respondent State. 20. Cost of this appeal is quantified at Rs.5000/- and the same be paid to the appellant by the respondent State along with the arrears of back wages.” 45. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties in the light of the aforesaid law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Md. Zamil Ahmed (Supra). 46. I find that the petitioner at the time of submitting application for compassionate appointment also filed an affidavit given by his father in which it was categorically stated that he was working on the post of Headmaster in Primary School Khamariya Sujat, Block Harraiya, District Basti. The District Basic Education Officer after considering the entire material available before him, issued order for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. There was no concealment of facts on the part of the petitioner. Once there was no concealment of facts on the part of petitioner at the time of initial appointment, now after elapse of about 19 years, the respondents cannot reopen the issue on the ground that while appointing the petitioner on the compassionate ground, the District Basic Education Officer did not follow the provisions of the Government Order dated 04.09.2000. It is also of utmost importance to take note of the fact that appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled on a complaint made by a private person alleging therein that petitioner’s appointment was contrary to the provisions of Government Order dated 04.09.2000. It is also of utmost importance to take note of the fact that appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled on a complaint made by a private person alleging therein that petitioner’s appointment was contrary to the provisions of Government Order dated 04.09.2000. It is also noteworthy that the complaint made by the complainant was initially considered by the District Magistrate who directed the District Basic Education Officer to submit his report and the District Basic Education Officer in his report categorically submitted that since considerable time has elapsed and there was no concealment of fact on the part of petitioner, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be seen that initial compassionate appointment was in violation of the provisions of Government Order dated 04.09.2000. Complainant also filed a Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) No. 26470 of 2014 which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.05.2014. Division Bench of this Court, while dismissing the Public Interest Litigation, has also taken note of the fact that appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground was made way back. 47. Once the complaint made by Mr. Sudesh Bhaskar was considered by the departmental authorities and no action was taken in the matter and further Public Interest Litigation filed by the complainant was dismissed by the Division Bench of this court, there was no occasion for the District Basic Education Officer to reinitiate the proceedings for cancellation of appointment of the petitioner and thereby to cancel compassionate appointment of the petitioner after elapse of 19 years. 48. Essence of the time and length of service is of paramount importance in the matters of cancellation of appointment on the ground that the initial appointment is contrary to the provisions of rules or government orders. If immediately after the appointment, authorities would have acted upon and the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled, then definitely no interference by this Court was warranted but where initial compassionate appointment was made 19 years back and there was no concealment of facts at the time of the said appointment, the same cannot be cancelled after elapse of 19 years on the ground that the initial appointment was made in violation of some provision of government order. Even further, in the present case departmental authorities, at no point of time, ever noticed that petitioner’s appointment on compassionate ground was made contrary to the provisions of Government Order dated 04.09.2000 rather the exercise of cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment has been done after elapse of 19 years on the behest of private complainant, therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 30.12.2022 whereby appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled, cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 49. The order dated 30.12.2022 whereby services of the petitioner have been terminated by cancelling his appointment from the date of his initial appointment is also not sustainable on another ground as regular disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by issuing him a charge-sheet to which he submitted reply but thereafter neither the procedure for conducting disciplinary inquiry was adopted nor inquiry report was submitted. It is well settled proposition of law that once disciplinary proceedings have been initiated by issuing a charge-sheet then the procedure prescribed for holding disciplinary inquiry has to be followed and on the basis of the inquiry report, disciplinary authority will issue a show cause notice and after taking reply, the final order in the disciplinary proceedings will be passed whereas in the present case though charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and his reply was taken but thereafter procedure as provided under Rule 7 and Rule 9 of The Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 has not been followed, therefore, the final order passed by the District Basic Education Officer on 30.12.2022 cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 50. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 30.12.2022 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Basti is quashed. Respondent No. 1 i.e. District Basic Education Officer, Basti is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith and to pay his salary along with arrears.