R~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 11th July 2011.
+ W.P.(C) 2144/1998
Ex. CONSTABLE CHANDER BHAN SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.M. Bagai, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
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. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Record of the Department has been perused.
3. Joining services under CISF on 5.3.1981, petitioner sought
leave which was sanctioned on 10.4.1995. As against 15 days
leave sought, 10 days were sanctioned requiring petitioner to
join back on 21.4.1995. He did, but left same day and did not
W.P.(C) No. 2144/1998 Page | 1
take the movement order which required him to join a Unit
which had moved.
4. Petitioner reported for duty on 20.9.1996 and was directed
to join the Unit at Vishakapatnam where it was realized that the
petitioner could not be made to join duty inasmuch as his
services has already been terminated by and under an order
dated 25.5.1996.
5. What had happened was that upon petitioner not joining
services, a charge memo was drawn up listing the charge of
disobeying lawful command and unauthorized absence, a wrong
stated to be unbecoming of a force personnel. Under cover of a
memo dated 20.10.1995, the charge sheet was sent under
Registered AD post and the record shows that the AD card,
bearing signatures of the petitioner, was received back.
6. No reply was filed by the petitioner to the charge sheet.
7. Record shows that the inquiry officer sent as many as 6
letters to the petitioner intimating the date on which he would
be conducting preliminary hearing; repetitive letters were sent
inasmuch as the petitioner was not receiving the letter sent.
8. Record shows that all 6 letters posted to the petitioner
were reported by the postal authorities with the report that the
petitioner was not available.
9. Conducting an ex-parte inquiry, the inquiry officer
submitted a report, which needless to state indicted the
W.P.(C) No. 2144/1998 Page | 2
petitioner and considering the same the services of the
petitioner terminated.
10. Thus the stand of the petitioner that he has been wronged
stands belied by the record produced.
11. Stand taken by the petitioner that he sought extension of
leave, is not supported by any document. The respondents have
categorically stated that they never received any application for
leave to be extended, and petitioner has given no proof of
having sent one.
12. Faced with the aforesaid, learned counsel for the
petitioner urges that this court may sanction compassionate
allowance to the petitioner, for the reasons when he reached
home after availing leave he found his wife, who was a mentally
disturbed lady missing from the house. Petitioner had to search
for his wife. When he located his wife he had to ensure medical
treatment for her. Petitioner is blessed with 5 children out of
which 4 are girls and 1 is a boy.
13. Suffice would it be to state that the aforesaid plea of the
petitioner is without proof of any documents before us.
14. Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, reads as under:-
“41. Compassionate Allowance
(1) A Government servant who is dismissed or
removed from service shall forfeit his pension and
gratuity:
W.P.(C) No. 2144/1998 Page | 3
Provided that the authority competent to
dismiss or remove him from service may, if the case
is deserving of special consideration, sanction a
Compassionate Allowance not exceeding two-thirds
of pension or gratuity or both which would have been
admissible to him if he had retired on compensation
pension.
(2) A compassionate Allowance sanctioned under
the proviso to sub-rule (1) shall not be less than the
amount of Rupees three thousand five hundred from
1.1.2006, per mensem.”
15. Suffice would it be to state that the mandate of the rule
enjoins upon the competent authority to consider whether a
case is deserving or a special case requiring compassionate
allowance to be sanctioned notwithstanding a government
servant being dismissed or removed from service.
16. The purport of the rule is to compensate the government
servant for service rendered notwithstanding his dismissal or
removal from service, if circumstances of compassion so
warrant.
17. Needless to state that if petitioner would satisfy the
competent authority that he left on account of his wife’s mental
sickness, it certainly would attract a special consideration.
18. Proof of the fact that the petitioner is in penury and has 4
daughters and a son as also a mentally challenged wife would
be a case deserving a special consideration, as contemplated by
the Rule.
19. We dispose of the writ petition declining the relief as
W.P.(C) No. 2144/1998 Page | 4
prayed for, but issue a direction to the Director General CISF,
that if petitioner makes a representation within a period of 30
days from today seeking compassionate allowance, the same
shall be considered within the parameters of Rule 41 of the CCS
(Pension) Rules.
20. Needless to state that the competent authority would look
into the service record of the petitioner inasmuch as it is
pleaded by the petitioner that his services of a little over 14
years was without a blemish. Said fact if correct would be dealt
with by the Director General, CISF while deciding the
representation of the petitioner as also the fact that the
petitioner claims to have brought laurels to the department at
sports events.
21. Necessary orders would be passed within a period of 8
weeks of receipt of the representation, if any, filed by the
petitioner.
22. No costs.
23. Dasti.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J
SUNIL GAUR, J
JULY 11, 2011
pkb
W.P.(C) No. 2144/1998 Page | 5