HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION No. 3646 of 2004
Pramod Kumar Kashyap
...Petitioners
VERSUS
Union of India & Others
...Respondents
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA.
! Shri V.K.Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner
^ Shri Anand Verma, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 2, 4, 5 and 6
Honble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.
Dated:29/03/2010
: Judgment
ORDER (ORAL)
(Passed on 29th day of March, 2010)
1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated
17.02.2003 (Annexure P /2) whereby imposition of punishment
of removal from service on the father of the petitioner from
service has been converted to compulsory retirement w.e.f.
6.7.1985, pursuant to the order dated 17.7.2002 passed by
the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur
(for short `the SAT’) in O.A. No. 393/1989, and the order
dated 02.04.2004 (Annexure P/11) whereby the application of
the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, who
was the dependent of Late Ramdhan Kashyap, Constable, who
died on 3.9.2000, was rejected, without assigning any reason
by the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Raipur.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner challenged the order dated 4.7.1985
whereby his father being a Constable in Police Department,
was imposed with a punishment of removal from service after
conducting a departmental enquiry, before the SAT. The
learned SAT after having heard learned counsel for the
parties, came to the conclusion that no interference was
required in the findings of the enquiry officer and the
disciplinary authority on the basis that the same was
perverse and was based on no evidence. Thus, the findings of
the enquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority was
upheld. However, having regard to the imposition of
punishment of removal from service, it was directed that the
same may be considered by the authorities, afresh for
modification of the order of removal from service. Pursuant
to that, the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, having
considered all the aspects of the matter, modified the order
of dismissal from service to that of compulsory retirement
w.e.f. 6.7.1985.
3. Shri Pandey further submits that there was allegation
of breaking the glass of the door of the Punjab National
Bank, Korba, only, which has caused loss for not more than
Rs. 125/-, and thus, imposition of such a punishment is
disproportionate.
4. On the contrary, Shri Roy, learned counsel appearing
for the State/respondents 2, 4, 5 and 6 submits that the
father of the petitioner was a member of police force
wherein discipline is required. The father of the
petitioner, while misusing his office, exceeded his
jurisdiction and broke the glass of the door of the bank and
such a person cannot be allowed to continue in police force,
as police force is meant to maintain law and order and peace
in the society. The father of the petitioner took law in its
own hands.
5. On consideration and perusal of the pleadings and
documents, contention of Shri Roy merits acceptance. It is
well settled that a man in uniform is expected to be more
disciplined as heavy responsibility is on the shoulder of a
member of police force to maintain law and order and peace
in the society. If a police personnel starts indulging into
breaking law and order, the civil society may be put in
peril.
6. The Supreme Court, in State of U.P. & Others v. Ashok
Kumar Singh & another1, observed that a police constable,
serving in disciplined force, which demands strict adherence
to the rules and procedure more than any other department,
in absenting himself from duty without permission, has
committed grave misconduct, which has rightly resulted into
removal from service.
7. Further, in Commissioner of Police v. Syed Hussain2,
the Supreme Court observed that in view of the nature of
duties that a protector of law is required to perform, it
cannot be said that the disciplinary authority had committed
any error imposing the punishment of removal from service
upon the respondent, particularly when on several occasions
he has been found guilty of misconduct.
8. Further contention of Shri Pandey that the reasons
stated by the Assistant Inspector General of Police, vide
its order dated 02.4.2004 (Annexure P/11) that the father of
the petitioner died before creation of the State of
Chhattisgarh, thus, the application of the petitioner for
grant of compassionate appointment cannot be considered, is
bad in law, unjust and illegal.
9. Shri Roy, learned Panel Lawyer, in response submits
that it is not the case of death of an employee in harness.
The father of the petitioner died on 03.09.2000 and he was
compulsorily retired from service on 06.07.1985. The
petitioner was initially terminated from service and
thereafter, on reconsideration, was retired compulsorily.
Thus, the petitioner is not entitled as his father did not
die in harness.
10. It is well settled that only those cases may be
considered for grant of appointment on compassionate basis
where an employee dies in harness as the sole purpose of
granting compassionate appointment is to provide immediate
relief and succor to the penurious family in distress.
Appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of
recruitment, but is a facility to provide for immediate
rehabilitation of the family in distress for relieving the
dependent family members of the deceased employee from
destitution. In other words, the object of compassionate
appointment is to enable penurious family to tide over the
sudden financial crisis and is not to provide employment.
(See : Haryana State Electricity Board and another v. Hakim
Singh3, State of Manipur v. Md. Rajaodin4, and State of J &
K and others v. Sajad Ahmed Mir5 ).
11. In view of the foregoing and for the reasons stated
hereinabove, no relief can be granted to the petitioner at
this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
12. No order asto costs.
JUDGE