Delhi High Court
Rajpati vs The Director, Central Bureau Of ... on 13 March, 2007
Equivalent citations: 139 (2007) DLT 196
Author: M Mudgal
Bench: M Mudgal, A Suresh
JUDGMENT
Mukul Mudgal, J.
CM No. 3553/2007 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
WP(C) No. 1928/2007
1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing.
2. The petitioner's husband Ram Chander was working with the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short 'CBI') on deputation w.e.f. 24th March, 1975 as a constable from Haryana Police, and was absorbed in CBI on 1st March, 1985. The petitioner's husband was promoted thereafter as Head Constable on 11th May, 1990. On 21st January, 1999, on certain allegations of tempering of the records, he was suspended. Since 29th January, 1999, the petitioner's husband has been missing.
3. The petitioner challenged the impugned judgment dated 15th September, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short 'CAT') in OA No. 381/2006. By the impugned judgment, the OA filed by the petitioner was partly allowed in the following terms:
15. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be served if CBI, considering the plight of the applicant, in the context of the legal assumption of death of her husband, reduced the penalty imposed on him from dismissal to compulsory retirement.
16. In the result, the OA is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 16.09.2003 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority with a direction to reconsider the facts and circumstances of the case in view of the legal assumption relating to the death of the delinquent official (the husband of the applicant) and in the light of our observations aforementioned, and pass a fresh order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event it is decided to reduce the penalty, the applicant will be entitled to all consequential benefits as per law. There will be no order as to costs.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Dhanda has submitted that apart from relief granted by the CAT, the petitioner was also entitled to avail the benefit of compassionate appointment upon the deemed death of her husband on account of his missing for seven years. We are of the view that this plea of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The petitioner was facing charges and while facing charges, he was found missing and has been missing since 1999. In these circumstances, the CAT's order gives adequate relief to the petitioner and consequently by placing reliance on the doctrine of deemed death due to 7 years period of absence, the relief of compassionate appointment could not be countenanced. Accordingly, this plea of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is rejected. Hence, we are of the view that CAT's order which is substantially in favor of the petitioner does not call for any interference. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.
5. The learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 states that as per paragraph 15 and 16 of the judgment which has been accepted by the respondent, the calculation of arrears of GPF, leave encashment and insurance, payable to the petitioner has already been completed and upon fulfillling the formalities by the petitioner in respect of pensionary benefits and the gratuity, the same shall be granted to the petitioner within 12 weeks of the petitioner's fulfillling the necessary formalities.
6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations.
