Delhi High Court
Rama Kant Shukla vs Uoi And Ors. on 22 July, 2016
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision : 22nd July, 2016
+ REVIEW PET. NO.411/2014 in W.P.(C) 658/2005
RAMA KANT SHUKLA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Amicus Curiae
with Mr. Manu Padaliaa and Mr.
Harsh Singhal, Advs.
versus
UOI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC
with Ms. Priti, Adv.for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
GITA MITTAL, J.
REVIEW PET. NO.411/2014
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on this
application seeking review of the judgment dated 6 th of February
2014. The petitioner in the instant case was enrolled as a Constable
in the Border Security Force on the 10 th of July 1968. While serving
at the Gun area of Kanzalwan at Bhuj with regard to an incident on
the 21st of June 1995, a chargesheet dated 25th July, 1995 was issued
by the officer commanding and the petitioner was subjected to trial by
Summary Security Force Code ('SSFC' hereafter) held on the 23 rd of
February 1996. On the same date, the petitioner was convicted and
sentenced to dismissal from service. By an order dated 6th of
February 2014, we had dismissed the writ petition upholding the
sentence imposed upon the petitioner in view of the well settled
parameters of judicial review into the trials conducted under the BSF
Act.
2. It appears that the petitioner assailed the order dated 6th
February, 2014 by way of special leave petition being
SLP(C)No.15335/2014 before the Supreme Court of India. At the
time of consideration of the matter on admission on 11 th July, 2014,
the petitioner had urged before the Supreme Court that under Section
74 of the BSF Act, 1968, the only punishment that could be imposed,
is as provided under sub-section 4 of the Section 74 of the Act. The
special leave petition was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to
file an appropriate review petition pressing this ground before this
court. This ground had not been pressed in the writ petition in this
court.
The present review petition has been filed as a result of the
above liberty.
3. Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel was appointed as amicus
curiae in this matter on behalf of the petitioner who submits that he
has carefully considered the matter and in fact, the ground as was
sought to be pressed before the Supreme Court is not legally correct.
He submits that he therefore, does not press that point. However,
reliance is placed on a pronouncement of Division Bench of this court
reported at 2015 SCC OnLine Del 13950, G.M. Gouzaming Kuki @
G.M. Kuki v. UOI & Ors. and it is prayed that keeping in view his
long blemishless service, the respondents be directed to disburse
compassionate allowance to the petitioner under Rule 41 of the
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.
4. It is urged that the dismissal of the petitioner is having a
devastating effect on his family and he is the sole breadwinner who
supports a family of wife and four children which includes two
daughters, one aged 25 years and the other one 20 years while the
other two children are still school going. Mr. Ankur Chibber, learned
amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the
aged parents of the petitioner are also dependent upon him. The
submission is that as a result of the sentence which was imposed upon
him, the entire family is rendered completely without any kind of
support and in extreme penury.
It is submitted that these facts and circumstances justify the
relief to the petitioner of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of
the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. There appears to be
merit in this contention. However, it is for the respondents to take a
view on this aspect.
5. This review petition is consequently disposed of in the above
terms with liberty to the petitioner to submit a proper representation
for grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the Central
Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The representation as and
when made shall be considered sympathetically and expeditiously by
the respondents.
Dasti.
GITA MITTAL, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
JULY 22, 2016
aj
