Ex.Nk.Sanwat Singh vs Union Of India & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 1275 Del

$~13
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


%                             Date of Decision: March 03, 2011


+                       WP (C) 3898/1998

        EX.NK.SANWAT SINGH                  ..... Petitioner
                 Through: Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate.

                   versus

        UNION OF INDIA & ORS.             ..... Respondents
                  Through: Ms.Geeta Sharma and
                           Ms.Tanu Goswami, Advocates
                           for UOI.


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
        to see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?


PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral)

1.      3 charges were laid against the petitioner. Firstly, being
under influence of liquor while on detachment on 9.12.1996;
secondly the act of ambushing and assaulting a senior officer
SI J.S.P.Mishra and lastly, when sent for medical examination
left the hospital and attempted to take away a government
WP(C) 3898/1998                                Page 1 of 4
 gypsy bearing No.DL-40B-7028.
2.    Holding     all   3   charges    established,   petitioner   was
dismissed from service on 28.2.1997.              Appeal filed was
rejected vide order dated 24.10.1997.
3.    Notwithstanding various grounds urged in the writ
petition, learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that none
of the grounds urged is worthy of consideration and thus does
not press the same.         However, counsel points out that the
petitioner had joined service on 16.5.1977.           He would have
completed 20 years' service on 16.5.1997.             Being dismissed
from service on 28.2.1997, counsel urges that after 2 months
and 16 days thereof i.e. on 28.2.1997, petitioner would have
rendered 20 years' service.           Taking the argument forward,
learned counsel urges that instant misdemeanour was the only
misdemeanour committed by the petitioner and past service of
19 years, 9 months and 15 days is without blemish.
4.    On the aforesaid facts brought to our notice, counsel
urges that the writ petition could be disposed of in harmony
with the ethos expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in
its decision dated 20.4.2007 in WP(C) 4656/2003 Ex.Sepoy
Sube Singh vs. UOI & Ors..
5.    Said decision shows that an army jawan was discharged
from service on account of having earned red ink entries. The
Court noted that whether or not the competent authority took
note of the fact that Sube Singh would have earned pension in
the near future was not forthcoming from the record.
Accordingly, direction issued was that Sube Singh should be
deemed to have been discharged from service effective from a
postponed date, which was set by the Court as 21.10.2002 so
WP(C) 3898/1998                                   Page 2 of 4
 that Sube Singh could earn retiral benefits.
6.    We note that under CRPF, compulsory retirement from
service is a punishment prescribed and as per Rule 40 of the
CCS     (Pension)   Rules,   a   government    servant       who   is
compulsorily retired from service as a penalty would be
eligible to be considered for grant of compulsory retirement
pension, which would be at a rate not less than 2/3rd and not
more than full compensation pension.
7.    Keeping in view the fact that petitioner has rendered 19
years, 9 months and 15 days service by the time he was
dismissed from service; taking note that instant misdemanour
was the only one committed by him in his entire service span,
we are of the opinion that ends of justice would be met in
disposing of the writ petition in harmony with the ethos
expressed by a Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in
Ex.Sepoy Sube Singh's case (supra).
8.    We dispose of the writ petition directing that for the
misdemeanour committed by the petitioner penalty to be
imposed upon him would be that of compulsory retirement and
date of effect would be 16.5.1997.
9.    The petitioner is also held entitled to pension as also
gratuity (if payable) as per Rule 40 of the CCS (Pension) Rules,
which we determine as 2/3rd of the compensation pension
which he would have otherwise earned after rendering 20
years' service.
10.   Since we have modified the penalty of dismissal from
service to one of compulsory retirement, lest petitioner raises
an issue to be paid wages from 1.3.1997 till 16.5.1997, we
hold that the petitioner would not be entitled to any wages for
WP(C) 3898/1998                                Page 3 of 4
 the said period.
11.   The pension directed to be paid to the petitioner as per
the present decision would be with effect from 17.5.1997 and
would be released to him within 6 months from today. Future
pension would be released each month.
12.   No costs.


                                PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

SURESH KAIT, J. MARCH 03, 2011 dk