Manoj Kumar vs Commissioner Of Police And Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 248 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                        Date of Decision: January 16, 2013

+                            W.P.(C) 8421/2010

       MANOJ KUMAR                                        ..... Petitioner
                             Represented by: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate

                    versus

       COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS            ..... Respondents
                    Represented by: Ms.Reeta Kaul with Mr.Sandeep
                    Khatri, Advocates
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. It is a hard case and requires an equitable relief to be granted.

2. The petitioner joined service in Delhi Police as a Constable on December 07, 1995. On May 12, 2006 he was visited with the penalty of removal from service after charge-sheet was served upon him for unauthorized absence. At the inquiry, the petitioner remained ex-parte. Appellate remedies have failed.

3. Along with the writ petition the petitioner has filed documents which are of unimpeachable character and nature inasmuch as they pertain to medical record of the petitioner maintained by 'Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences'. The same would evidence that the petitioner was taking psychotropic drugs for some psychiatric problem which he was facing. The record, which is in the nature of OPD cards, prescriptions, receipts of medicines purchased and certificates issued, would evidence that the problem surfaced somewhere around July 2000 and continued.

W.P.(C) 8421/2010 page 1 of 3

4. While issuing a notice in the writ petition as recorded in the order dated December 20, 2010 we had noted that keeping in view the mental disorder from which the petitioner was suffering, the Commissioner of Police may consider whether the Department would be willing to treat the petitioner as having compulsorily retired on medical grounds with effect from May 12, 2006 i.e. when he was removed from service.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent would inform that the Commissioner of Police has taken a decision not to do so.

6. As per the charge, the petitioner was stated to be willfully absent firstly for 7 days and 10 hours from September 01, 2002 till September 08, 2002. He remained unauthorizedly absent for a second time for 11 days, 3 hours and 40 minutes from January 02, 2003 till January 13, 2003. The third period of unauthorized absence spanning 29 days, 2 hours and 10 minutes was from April, 1983 till May 15, 2003.

7. The charge itself notes that on May 24, 2003 the uncle of the petitioner submitted a fitness certificate issued from the 'Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences', G.T. Road, Shahdara which records that the petitioner remained under treatment at the hospital from January 13, 2003 till April 16, 2003 and was declared fit for joining duties on April 17, 2003.

8. The charge thereafter notes two more periods of unauthorized absence. The charge itself notes that when call upon notices were issued, the brother of the petitioner informed of petitioner being mentally ill and admitted at the Shahdara mental hospital.

9. Not by any standards to be understood to mean that alcoholism is accepted by us as a defence for the stressful work which Constables of Delhi Police perform, but keeping in view that pension is treated as something earned and not a bounty, and Rule 41 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 permits if a case is found to be deserving of special consideration a sanction W.P.(C) 8421/2010 page 2 of 3 of a compassionate allowance notwithstanding the government servant being dismissed or removed from service, while declining relief as prayed for, we dispose of the writ petition directing the Competent Authority of the respondent to sanction to the petitioner a compassionate allowance with effect from the date he was removed from service i.e. May 12, 2006.

10. We clarify for the benefit of the Competent Authority that compassionate allowance directed to be sanctioned by us is 2/3rd of the compensation pension which would be payable as per Rule 39 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and that Rule 39 does not envisage any minimum qualifying compensation pension service.

11. Compliance be made with this order by calculating the past dues payable as compassionate allowance and paid to the petitioner within 12 weeks from today. Thereafter, monthly compassionate allowance will be paid.

12. No costs.

13. Dasti.

CM No. 21609/2010 (stay)

Dismissed as infructuous.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(VEENA BIRBAL) JUDGE JANUARY 16, 2013 srb

W.P.(C) 8421/2010 page 3 of 3