Ram Karan Singh (Since Deceased) ... vs Union Of India & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 227 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                Judgment Reserved on: January 02, 2014
                               Judgment Pronounced on: January 13, 2014

+                          W.P.(C) 7176/1999

       RAM KARAN SINGH (SINCE DECEASED)
       THROUGH L.Rs.                               .....Petitioners
               Represented by: Ms.Jyoti Singh, Sr.Advocate
                               instructed by Mr.A.K.Trivedi and
                               Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocates

                                    versus

       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                           ..... Respondents
                Represented by:          Dr.Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. The factual backdrop necessary to be noted to dispose of the above captioned petition is that on November 21, 1962 the petitioner was enrolled in CRPF. On March 27, 1998 the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF (Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner) issued a charge sheet to the petitioner listing out one article of charge.

2. In a nutshell, the gist of the charge framed against the petitioner was that while functioning as officiating Officer Commanding SWS, Guwahati he presented bills totaling Rs.1,27,423/-, pertaining to repairs of four vehicles (Mahindra Allwyn Nissan) for payment (withdrawal action) in the office of Additional DIGP, GC, CRPF certifying their satisfactory repair, though one of the vehicles was yet to come for the

workshop where it was sent for repairs, and other three vehicles were not satisfactorily repaired. The details of four vehicles mentioned in the charge sheet as also the date of the bill and its presentation by the petitioner are being tabulated herein under:-

S.       Number        of Name          of Date           of   Date       of
No.      Vehicle          Workshop         bill/Return    of   presentation
                                           vehicle     from    of bill by
                                           workshop            petitioner
1.       PB-08-D-         M/s Amreeta 29.08.1997               20.01.1998
         2912             Enterprises, Six
                          Mile,      G.S.
                          Road,
                          Guwahati
2.       PB-08-D-         M/s Amreeta 09.09.1997               04.03.1998
         2950             Enterprises, Six
                          Mile,      G.S.
                          Road,
                          Guwahati
3.       PB-08-D-         M/s Amreeta 09.09.1997               04.03.1998
         2957             Enterprises, Six
                          Mile,      G.S.
                          Road,
                          Guwahati
4.       DL-IL-7631       M/s       Anku 15.11.1997/April,     04.03.1998
                          Enterprises,     1998
                          Ullubari, G.S.
                          Road,
                          Guwahati

3. Vide a letter dated April 13, 1998 addressed to the Disciplinary Authority the petitioner denied the charge framed against him. It was contended by the petitioner that he had clearly instructed his subordinate officer, SI (M) G.N. Rao and HC/Driver Dinanath Mahto not to send the bills pertaining to the four vehicles in question to the Group Centre for payment, till the vehicles were satisfactorily repaired by the concerned workshop(s) but his subordinate staff defied said instructions and sent the

bills in question for payment to the Group Centre. Due to his heavy workload he could not check bills in question at the time of their dispatch; however when he came to know about the dispatch of said bills he immediately wrote letter dated March 09, 1998 to the Group Centre for stopping clearance of said bills.

4. Since petitioner had denied the charge framed against him the enquiry commenced. The petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer and pleaded guilty to the charge framed against him. Notwithstanding plea of guilt taken by the petitioner (as claimed by the department) the Enquiry Officer proceeded to examine five witnesses.

5. G.P. Sharma PW-1, SWS, Guwahati, deposed that on March 05, 1998 he examined four vehicles in question and found that same have not been satisfactorily repaired by the workshop(s) to which they were sent for repair that on March 09, 1998, he delivered a letter to Group Centre, Guwahati wherein it was stated that the bills pertaining to said four vehicles be not cleared and that payment should not be made to the concerned workshop until the vehicles are satisfactorily repaired. The petitioner declined to cross-examine said witness. Being relevant, we note the following portion of the examination of the witness by the Enquiry Officer:-

"Q.1 Whether OCSWS Inspector (MM) Ram Karan Singh had told you about stopping of bills of these vehicles? Ans. No."

6. SI (M) G.N. Rao PW-2, deposed that he was working in SWS Guwahati at the relevant time. On receipt of bills from the workshop(s) where the four vehicles in question were sent for repair, the same i.e. the bills were sent to the Group Centre for payment. On March 05, 1998

Deputy Commandant G.P.Sharma examined the four vehicles and informed him that the same have not been satisfactorily repaired by the workshop(s) to which they were sent for repair. On March 09, 1998 he wrote a letter to Group Centre, Guwahati at the instance of G.P. Sharma stating therein that the bills pertaining to said four vehicles be not cleared and that payment should not be made to the concerned workshop until the vehicles are satisfactorily repaired. Yet again, the petitioner declined to cross-examine the witness. Being relevant, we note the following portion of the examination of the witness by the Enquiry Officer:-

"Q.2 Whether the work of these vehicles was fully satisfactory or not confirm this?

Ans. I can not say anything about these bills and papers come to me I perform the function of sending them for recoupment. Q.3 Do you send the bill independently or through OCSWS? Ans. Through OCSWS.

Q.4 Then what is your Role in sending of bills for Recoupment?

Ans. On completion of bill and all papers like LCR stock entry, I giving the description of such bills in forwarding memo submit the same to OCSWS and after his signatures the same was sent to G.C.

Q.5 Whether these copies are of the same letters No.M VI- 2/97-98 SWS Gty dated 20.01.1998 and 04.03.1998 under which bills of these four vehicles were sent by Memo to G.C. for recoupment?

Ans. Copies are of the same letters (Above said both copies were shown to the witness and delinquent and for showing concurrence their signatures were obtained) Q.6 Whose signatures are there on both these letters? Ans. OCSWS‟s signatures who was insp (MM) Ram Karan Singh.

Q.7 Does the office copy also bears your initials? Ans. Yes Q.8 Inspector (MM) Ram Karan Singh has alleged that you had without informing him sent the bills of these 4 vehicles for recoupment to GC what have you to say? Ans. It is not the case.

Q.9 Then what is the reality?

Ans. I had submitted the bills of these vehicles to OCSWS Insp (MM) Ram Karan Singh and there were other bills in it. Q.10 Whether you had orders from OCSWS or other staff that the bills of these four vehicles have not to be sent for recoupment till the time you are ordered again? Ans. After completion of Line Committee once SWS had stated that bills have not to be sent now. Q.11 Then why did you do it and why did you forward the bills of these 4 vehicles?

Ans. Because the Financial year was ending and I presented all the bills which were pending to OCSWS for being sent to GC and OCSWS signed on it and then sent. Q.12 But out of these one bill was sent by SWS on 20.01.1998 why did it happen at that time?

Ans. With respect to this bill nothing was told to me therefore it was sent.

Q.14 Whether can you tell that the bills of the three vehicles which was presented before OCSWS on 04.03.1998 by you and were sent for recoupment were in the knowledge of OCSWS? Ans. When I submitted he had full knowledge of it. Q.15 What type of knowledge did OCSWS have? Ans. He had knowledge that the bills of these three vehicles were being sent for recoupment on being submitted.

Q.16 Then why it is being said against you that you had sent bills without informing to the G.C. for recoupment? Ans. In this respect I cannot say anything." (Emphasis Supplied)

7. HC/Fitter C.C. Krishan Kumar PW-3, deposed that he had inspected the vehicles bearing Nos. PB-08-D-2912, PB-08-D-2950 and PB-08-D-2957 when they had returned from the workshop where they were sent for repair and found that said vehicles have not been satisfactorily repaired. He informed the petitioner about the unsatisfactory repair of said three vehicles whereupon the petitioner told him that he would inform the owner of the workshop where the vehicles were sent for repair requiring him to rectify the defects. Pertinently, the petitioner did not cross-examine the witness with reference to his deposition (s) that said three vehicles were not satisfactorily repaired and that said fact was informed to the petitioner. Being relevant, we note the following portion of the examination of the witness by the Enquiry Officer:-

"Q.21 Whether the concerned shopkeepers were called for completing the jobwork of these vehicles? Ans. No. Q.22 Why did it not happen?

Ans. I do not know.

Q.23 Did you again tell OCSWS Inspector (MM) Ram Karan Singh about this subject that the work of these vehicles is not complete?

Ans. No in the meantime I had gone on leave. Q.29 You took the charge in February, then at that time did you make report of non completion of work to OCSWS? Ans. Yes I gave report of this to OCSWS Inspector (MM) Ram Karan.

Q.30 On this what did he say?

Ans. OCSWS Ram Karan Singh stated that the shopkeeper is not available." (Emphasis Supplied)

8. HC/Driver R.S.Hazari PW-4, stated that he was working as Store Head Constable (Technical Store), SWS, Guwahati at the relevant time. He stopped the clearing of the bill pertaining to repair of vehicle No. DL- IL-7631 since said vehicle had not returned from the workshop where it was sent for repair. He was on leave for the period from January 17, 1998 to March 04, 1998. During said period, HC/Driver Dinanath Mahto was holding the charge of Technical Store. When he came from leave HC/Driver Dinanath Mahto informed him that SI (M) G.N. Rao asked him to hand over all pending bills to him, which direction was complied by HC/Driver Dinanath Mahto. The petitioner declined to cross-examine said witness. Being relevant, we note the following portion of the examination of the witness by the Enquiry Officer:-

"Q.28 You have stated that you had told person taking charge from you not to send the bills. But after vacation on 5.03.1998 when you again took charge you found that bills of these four vehicles had gone. On this what steps did you take? Ans. I did not take any steps only told SI (M) G.N. Rao that you have committed wrong act by sending bills for payment. Q.29 When being Store Head Constable you come to know that bills had been sent for payment action whereas the Job Work of these vehicles had not been complete then why did you not take any action for stopping the bills by going to G.C. which had been sent to G.C. on 04.03.1998?

Ans. I did not have power to stop the bills going to G.C. Q.30 Then whose power was it so that wrong bill may not be paid and they may be stopped?

Ans. This job was of SI (M) G.N. Rao who was officer of SWS.

Q.31 Did you tell SI (M) G.N. Rao about this subject that he should do this and should get bill stopped in G.C.? Ans. I did not tell.

Q.32 You knowing that bills of these four vehicles had been sent for payment without completion of job work, then why did you not tell SI (M) G.N. Rao to stop the bills? Ans. When I told him then he had stated that if work of these vehicles had not been completed then draft will be stopped after receiving payment.

Q.33 Do you work under SI (M) G.N. Rao or under OCSWS? Ans. I work under OCSWS.

Q.34 Then why did you not give report of wrong bills sent by SI (M) G.N. Rao to OCSWS?

Ans. I had given report to OCSWS Inspector (MM) Ram Karan Singh.

Q.35 What did he say?

Ans. Inspector (MM) Ram Karan Singh stated that this is a wrong act why he has done it.

Q.40 Do not you feel that being Store Head Constable you have shown slackness in getting the bill stopped of these vehicles?

Ans. Yes I feel so.

Q.41 Had some representative of the firm come to see these vehicles?

Ans. Yes he had come.

Q.42 Then why has not the work been completed uptill now? Ans. The responsibility of this is of OCSWS. In this respect I cannot say anything.

Q.43 Is it not the case that advance bills of these 4 vehicles had been taken and the parts and job work has not been there? Ans. It is not the case." (Emphasis Supplied)

9. HC/Driver Dinanath Mahto PW-5, deposed that on November 5, 1996, he was given the charge of Store Head Constable (Technical Store). On March 03, 1998 SI (M) G.N.Rao who was posted as a clerk in SWS came to him and enquired about the pending bills from him. He informed him that four-five bills are pending with him including the bills of four vehicles in question. He further informed him that the bills of four vehicles in question have not to be sent for payment. SI (M) G.N.Rao then told him to hand over all pending bills to him. He again informed him that bills of four vehicles in question have not to be sent for payment as they have not been satisfactorily repaired. On March 04, 1998 G.N.Rao returned the office copies of the bills including the bills of four vehicles in question whereupon he enquired from G.N.Rao as to why he had sent the bills of four vehicles in question for payment despite his informing him to the contrary. G.N.Rao replied that sending said bills for payment is of no consequence since the financial year is ending and remaining work will be get completed from the concerned workshop. The petitioner declined to cross-examine said witness. Being relevant, we note the following portion of the examination of the witness by the Enquiry Officer:-

"Q.8 Whether did you check up after the return of these Bullet Proof vehicles to the workshop that their job work has been done satisfactory as per given supply order? Ans. Yes I had checked these four bullet proofed vehicles and found that the job work done in them was not satisfactory and was incomplete.

Q.10 On finding this did you report this to anyone? Ans. I had given Insp (MM) Ram Karan Singh a report about this.

Q.11 On your giving report what did Inspector (MM) Ram Karan Singh say?

Ans. He stated that till the time work is not completed the bills of these vehicles should not be sent for drawal action. Q.13 When Inspector (MM) had specifically told you that the bills of these four bullet proof vehicles have not to be sent for payment till the time the concerned firm has completed the work then why did you give these bills to SI G.N. Rao? Ans. He told me that he has only to check the bills and not sent them. Therefore I handed over the bills to this. Q.16 When on second day that is 04/03/1998 you saw that SI G.N. Rao has sent the bills of these four bullet proof vehicles for payment then what steps did you take? Ans. Informed Inspector (MM) Ram Karan Singh that bills have been sent for payment.

Q.17 On this what did (MM) Ram Karan Singh say? Ans. He told me that okay he will get it checked up from the main office and will get them recalled." (Emphasis Supplied)

10. After conclusion of evidence of departmental witnesses the petitioner again pleaded guilty to the charge framed against him and did not lead any evidence in his defence. The petitioner also did not submit his defence statement to the Enquiry Officer.

11. Vide his report dated June 19, 1998, the Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him. In so concluding, it was held by the Enquiry Officer that: -

(i) the statements of departmental witnesses and documentary evidence adduced by the department establish that bills relating to repairing of four vehicles in question being sent to the Group Centre for payment even though the four vehicles had not been satisfactorily repaired;

(ii) the statements of departmental witnesses, particularly that of SI G.N.Rao, HC/Driver R.S. Hazari and HC/Driver Dinanath Mahto, and documentary evidence adduced by the department clearly bring out that the petitioner played an instrumental role in sending the bills relating to repairing of four vehicles to the Group Centre for payment despite being fully aware of the fact that the four vehicles have not been satisfactorily repaired;

(iii) the fact that the petitioner played an instrumental role in sending the bills relating to repair of the four vehicles is clearly evidenced from the facts that petitioner had signed the forwarding memo(s) vide when said bills were sent to the Group Centre as also certified the completion and good quality of repairing of vehicles on the back leaf of each of the bills and that he did not send said bills for payment for a long period of three- five months;

(iv) the petitioner has admitted his guilt in the enquiry proceedings;

(v) the defence taken by the petitioner in his letter dated April 13, 1998 that bills in question were dispatched for payment by his subordinate staff and he could not check the same at the time of their dispatch due to his heavy workload is not tenable inasmuch the facts that petitioner had signed the forwarding memo(s) vide which said bills were sent to the Group Centre as also the work completion certificate(s) relating to said bills certifying the completion and good quality of repairing; and

(vi) the claim made by the petitioner that on learning about dispatch of bills in question he immediately wrote letter dated March 09, 1998 to the Group Centre for stopping the clearance of bills is fallacious inasmuch as

said letter was written at the instance of successor of petitioner i.e. G.P.Sharma PW-1.

12. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Disciplinary Authority against the report of the Enquiry Officer wherein he essentially reiterated the stand taken by him in his letter dated April 13, 1998. Additionally, he contended that bills in question were not sent to the Group Centre for payment on his directions and that on the contrary, the evidence of SI G.N. Rao, HC/Driver R.S. Hazari and HC/Driver Dinanath Mahto brings out that he i.e. the petitioner had specifically directed to not to send the bills in question for payment until the vehicles forming subject-matter of said bills are satisfactorily repaired. (Pertinently, no averment is contained in said representation that Enquiry Officer did not provide Defence Assistant to the petitioner despite his having made a request in said request due to which he was seriously prejudiced in defending himself in the enquiry proceedings). Being relevant, we note the following portion of representation submitted by the petitioner:-

"v) ...., the only short coming on the part of me pointed by the E.O. is that I made my signature on the letter of about 52 Bills in a lot and that too during the fag end of financial year. The error I accepted whole heartedly, but the E.O. taken it granted as a „Pleaded guilty‟ of the entire charge." (Emphasis Supplied)

13. Vide order dated August 31, 1998 the Disciplinary Authority accepted the finding of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner.

14. Vide order dated January 23, 1999 the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated August 31, 1998 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Pertinently, the petitioner

had contended in his appeal that the Enquiry Officer did not provide him with a defence assistant despite his having made a request in said regard, which contention was repelled on the ground that the petitioner had never requested for a Defence Assistant in the enquiry proceedings.

15. Vide order dated June 22, 1999 the Revisional Authority rejected the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated January 23, 1999 passed by the Appellate Authority.

16. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner has filed the above captioned petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

17. In support of present petition, following two submissions were advanced:-

A The enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Enquiry Officer did not provide a Defence Assistant to the petitioner despite his having made a specific request in said regards. The action of the Enquiry Officer of not providing Defence Assistant to the petitioner has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner in defending himself in the enquiry proceedings. In order to show that the petitioner had made a request for providing him with Defence Assistant during the enquiry proceedings our attention was drawn to a letter dated May 08, 1998 claimed to have been written by the petitioner to the Enquiry Officer requesting him to provide him with a Defence Assistant.

B No evidence has emerged in the enquiry proceedings wherefrom guilt of the petitioner can be deduced. The depositions of departmental witnesses, particularly that of SI G.N.Rao PW-2, HC/Driver R.S. Hazari PW-4 and HC/Driver Dinanath Mahto, clearly bring out that bills in question were sent to the Group Centre for payment at the instance of SI

G.N.Rao and not the petitioner. The depositions further bring out that in fact the petitioner had directed of SI G.N.Rao PW-2, HC/Driver R.S. Hazari PW-4 and HC/Driver Dinanath Mahto to not to send the bills in question for payment until the four vehicles forming subject-matter of said bills were satisfactorily repaired by the concerned workshop(s).

18. Pertaining to the first submission predicated upon Defence Assistant advanced by the petitioner, we note that the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer for the first time on May 08, 1998. On the same date i.e. May 08, 1998 the petitioner claims to have made a request to the Enquiry Officer for providing him with a Defence Assistant. The examination of departmental witnesses commenced on May 09, 1998 and concluded on June 08, 1998. What did the petitioner do all this while regarding his request for Defence Assistant? The answer is nothing. Did the petitioner complain to the Disciplinary Authority that Enquiry Officer has not provided him with a Defence Assistant despite specific request made by him in said regard? The answer is NO. Thereafter on June 11, 1998 the Enquiry Officer examined the petitioner and the enquiry proceedings concluded since the petitioner chose not to lead his defence. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on June 19, 1998 holding the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him. Thereafter the petitioner submitted his representation against the report of the Enquiry Officer. Most pertinently, no averment is contained in the said representation that Enquiry Officer did not provide Defence Assistant to the petitioner despite his having made a request in said request due to which he was seriously prejudiced in defending himself in the enquiry proceedings. If he had indeed requested Enquiry Officer for Defence Assistant the petitioner would have surely complained to the Disciplinary

Authority during the conduct of enquiry proceedings or at least in the representation submitted by him against the report of the Enquiry Officer that Enquiry Officer is not providing/provided him with a Defence Assistant. But this was not the case. The very fact that the petitioner did not even raise a whisper about the (alleged) request made by him for Defence Assistant before the appeal filed by him is strongly indicative of the fact that the plea pertaining to Defence Assistant taken by the petitioner is an afterthought and the letter dated May 08, 1998 a contrived letter. It contains no proof of receipt by the Enquiry Officer.

19. In dealing with second submission, certain basic facts may be noted. Four vehicles; PB-08-D-2912, PB-08-D-2950, PB-08-D-2957 and DL-IL-7631 were sent to the workshop(s) for repair. On August 29, 1997/September 09, 1997 vehicles bearing Nos. PB-08-D-2912, PB-08- D-2950 and PB-08-D-2957 returned to SWS from workshop M/s Amreeta Enterprises, Six Mile, G.S. Road, Guwahati, together with the bills sent by said workshop relating to repairing of vehicles. It is not in dispute that said three vehicles were not satisfactorily repaired and the petitioner was duly aware about the same. On November 15, 1997 the bill in respect of vehicle No. DL-IL-7631 was sent by the workshop M/s Anku Enterprises, Ullubari, G.S. Road, Guwahati even though said vehicle was still in the workshop. Yet again, the petitioner was aware of the said fact.

20. As already noted hereinabove, vehicles bearing Nos. PB-08-D- 2912, PB-08-D-2950 and PB-08-D-2957 were not satisfactorily repaired when they returned to SWS from the workshop. Being Officer Commanding SWS, the petitioner should have immediately sent the vehicles back to the workshop for rectification of defects. But the same

was not done. The vehicles remained in defective condition in SWS for a long time. No explanation whatsoever has emerged on record as to why the petitioner did not send the three vehicles to the concerned workshop for rectification of defects. On January 20, 1998/March 04, 1998 bills in respect of said three vehicles were forwarded to the Group Centre for payment.

21. The case of vehicle bearing No. DL-IL-7631 is even more baffling. The record shows that vehicle bearing No.DL-IL-7631 was sent to the concerned workshop on September 06, 1997. Vehicle bearing No. DL-IL- 7631had not returned to SWS on March 04, 1998 when the bill in respect of said vehicle was sent to Group Centre for payment. Being Officer Commanding SWS, the petitioner should have ensured that vehicle bearing No. DL-IL-7631 should have timely returned from the workshop to SWS. The record reveals that no steps were taken by the petitioner for timely return of the vehicle bearing No. DL-IL-7631. Again, no explanation whatsoever has emerged on record as to why the petitioner did not take any step for timely return of vehicle bearing No. DL-IL- 7631.

22. It has not been disputed by the petitioners that he had signed the forwarding memos vide which the bills in question were sent to the Group Centre for payment. Most significantly, the petitioner had certified the completion and good quality of repairs on the back leaf of each of the bills despite being aware about the fact that vehicles in question have not been satisfactorily repaired. (The petitioner claims that he did not check the memos/bills signed/certified by him due to his heavy workload).

23. The cumulative of trinity of circumstances i.e. the petitioner signing the forwarding memos vide which bills were sent to the Group Centre for payment despite being aware about the fact that vehicles in question have not been satisfactorily repaired; the petitioner certified the completion and good quality of repairs on the back leaf of each of the bills despite being aware about the fact that vehicles in question have not been satisfactorily repaired, and petitioner did not send vehicles PB-08- D-2912, PB-08-D-2950 and PB-08-D-2957 back to the workshop for rectification of defects or ensured timely return of vehicle No. DL-IL- 7631 from workshop to SWS compels us to conclude that the petitioner played an active roll in sending the bills relating to repairing of four vehicles in question to the Group Centre for payment despite being fully aware of the fact four vehicles in question have not been satisfactorily repaired. In view of evidence on record the view taken by the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner is guilty of the charge framed against him and accepted by the departmental authorities is a reasonable and probable view this Court exercising writ jurisdiction would not sit over judgment as an appellate authority over the decision of the departmental authorities.

24. But this is not the end of the matter.

25. The evidence on record; particularly the deposition of HC Driver Dinanath Mahto PW-5, that he had handed over the bills in question to SI (M) G.N. Rao and that of G.N. Rao PW-2, himself that he had sent the bills in question for payment as the financial year was ending, establishes the complicity of SI G.N. Rao (along with the petitioner) in the present case. We find that no action whatsoever has been taken against SI G.N. Rao.

26. The petitioner was enrolled in CRPF on November 21, 1962. The penalty of dismissal of service was imposed upon the petitioner on August 31, 1998, by which time the petitioner had rendered about 36 years service. We find that save and except penalty of dismissal from service, no other penalty was imposed on the petitioner in his entire service spanning 36 years.

27. In view of the facts that petitioner had rendered 36 years of service; past conduct of petitioner was unblemished and no action was taken SI (M) G.N.Rao who was also involved in the present case we find that the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the petitioner is harsh. Ordinarily, after setting aside the penalty we would have remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority requiring the Disciplinary Authority to pass fresh order levying appropriate penalty. But noting that the writ petition has remained pending in this Court for nearly 14 years and in the interregnum the petitioner has expired, such being the position, in the interests of justice we convert the penalty of dismissal of service imposed upon the petitioner to one of compulsory retirement from service with effect from August 31, 1998 (being the date of the dismissal order) and direct the Competent Authority to sanction pension to the petitioner under Rule 40 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The pension sanctioned would be paid with effect from September 01, 1998 till the deceased petitioner was alive and thereafter such pension as would be payable to the family. Arrears be paid within 12 weeks, as stated by learned counsel who appeared for the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner the amount be disbursed by issuing a cheque in the name of Smt.Ram Rati, the wife of the deceased petitioner.

28. No costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(JAYANT NATH) JUDGE JANUARY 13, 2014 mamta