Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Kamal Kumar Yadav vs State Of Raj And Ors on 26 October, 2017
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 996 / 2017
Kamal Kumar Yadav S/o Sh. Kirori Lal Yadav, Aged About 56
Years, R/o Mohallaha Grandeel, Dholpur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary Home,
Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Police Telecommunication, Ghatgate, Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent of Police II, Telecommunication, Govt. of
Rajasthan, Ghatgate, Jaipur.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manoj Pareek.
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI Order 26/10/2017 (1) Joining service as a Constable on 29.10.1980 and earning promotion as a Head Constable on 20.1.1984 the appellant proceeded on leave on 10.2.1996 but reported back for duty on 17.08.1997. Chargesheeted for willful absent without leave sanctioned for 545 days, being indicted for the charge, penalty of removal from service was inflicted upon the appellant on 7.8.1998. Departmental appeal was rejected on 11.12.1998. (2) Challenge to the penalty imposed on the appellant before the learned Single Judge was on the plea that the appellant became mental unstable and this was the reason for unauthorised absence. But the appellant furnished no proof in support thereof.
(2 of 2) [SAW-996/2017] At the departmental proceedings appellant led no evidence of his mental infirmity except to produce his father and relatives as witnesses; no documentary evidence was produced. The writ petition was dismissed.
(3) On 15.09.2017 notice was issued in the appeal on the plea of learned Counsel for the appellant that taking a compassionate view if penalty could be substituted with that of the compulsory retirement. The Court issued the notice but regretfully for the appellant he has not rendered qualifying service and thus even if the penalty is substituted with that of compulsory retirement, no benefit would accrue to the appellant. (4) But we find that as per the Rule 43 of the Rajasthan Pension Rules, 1996, compassionate allowance can be sanctioned, and thus while dismissing the writ-appeal we observe that if within three months from today the appellant moves an application before the competent authority seeking compassionate allowance the same shall be considered and decided in view of the guidelines laid down by the Government under Rule 43 of the Pension Rules, 1996.
(5) The appeal is disposed of. (DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI),J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),C.J. N.Gandhi/Manish/17