Delhi High Court
Jai Bhagwan vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 17 December, 2018
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 17.12.2018
+ W.P.(C.) No. 13619/2018
JAI BHAGWAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Singal, Advocate.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat with Mr. Nitesh
Singh, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.CHAWLA
JUDGMENT
A.K.CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. By the instant petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of
Certiorari to quash the order dated 31.08.2018 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in short, 'CAT',
whereby, the OA filed by the petitioner extending challenge to his dismissal
from service by the respondents, was dismissed.
2. Concisely, the relevant facts are that the petitioner was enlisted in
Delhi Police on 02.05.1986. He came to be dismissed from service on
14.02.2011 taking into account his misconduct of unauthorized absentism
from time to time. Order of dismissal from service has become final and by
the proceedings resulting into the present petition, the petitioner is seeking
indulgence for grant of compassionate allowance invoking Rule 41(1) of
CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in short, 'the said Rules'. CAT dismissed the
application made to that effect and that has resulted into the filing of the
instant petition.
3. It is the plea that the petitioner had atleast served for more than 14
years and therefore had qualified for the pensionary benefits as
contemplated under Rule 41 of the said Rules and that the charge of
absentism even though willful, was not such to deprive the petitioner of the
benefit under Rule 41 of the said Rules.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the
petitioner having rendered more than 14 years of service, it would be unjust
to deny him the pensionary benefit by way of compassionate allowance as
provided for under Rule 41 of the said Rules. In his submissions, it was not a
case of any moral turpitude but only of absentism and in view thereof, the
petitioner but for the acts of absentism having rendered unblemished service
for more than 14 years out of a total period of 24 years or so, at the time
when he came to be dismissed, at least deserves the pensionary benefits, as
contmeplated under Rule 41 of the said Rules. In support of his such
submissions, he placed reliance upon Mahinder Dutt Sharma vs. Union of
India & Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 684.
5. We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the subject matter.
Though, the dismissal order has come to be passed on account of acts of
absentism, such misconduct cannot be read in isolation of the attending
circumstances, which attracted it. After a few rounds of litigation, the
competent authority taking note of the misconduct resulting into the
dismissal order, has not found the petitioner fit for the grant of
compassionate allowance under the said Rules by a detailed order dated
12/14-12-2015. CAT has dealt with the facts and the circumstances of the
case in detail and we do not consider it necessary to narrate the same once
again. Perusal of the order of the competent authority dated 12/14-12-2015
and the impugned order of CAT, we consider, shall suffice.
6. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner started unauthorized absence
from duty from the time he was Constable (Executive) and his such
misconduct persisted even after he came to be promoted as Head Constable.
Inspite of the fact that he was repeatedly served with the show cause notices,
suspended and imposed penalties since April, 2000 onwards. He invited
dismissal order on account of his unexplained and unauthorized absentism,
while being a member of a disciplinary force. Of course, it is least expected
of a member of a service, which has to be much disciplined.
7. Compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the said Rules, which the
petitioner seeks, is provided by the competent authority, when the case
deserves special consideration. On being queried, the learned counsel for the
petitioner was at pains to point so but for contending that the petitioner had
put in more than 14 years of service and that was unblemished. To us, it is
not the purport of Rule 41. Rule 41 by its very opening words and the
sentence reads otherwise. It is only the proviso attached to it that provides
for the discretion to the competent authority to sanction a compassionate
allowance in a case which attracts special consideration.
8. Mahinder Dutt's case (supra) is of no avail to the petitioner inasmuch
as it was a case, where the petitioner absented in all for a period of 320 days,
10 hours and 30 minutes and during the service of about 24 years, granted
34 good entries, including 02 commendation rolls awarded by the
Commissioner of Police, 04 commendation certificates awarded by the
Addl. Commissioner of Police and 28 commendation cards awarded by the
Dy. Commissioner of Police. Petitioner is not shown to be even close to
such facts and circumstances in which Mahinder Dutt of the same force
came to be considered and extended the benefit under the proviso to Rule 41
of the said rules.
9. In view of the foregoing, the petition is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
A.K.CHAWLA, J.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
DECEMBER 17, 2018
rc
