Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Harsh Malik vs Comm. Of Police on 13 February, 2026
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No.2278 of 2019
Orders reserved on : 02.02.2026
Orders pronounced on : 13.02.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Harsh Malik
S/o Lt. Sh. Subhash Chand
R/o Village Hansanpur, P.O Lisadh,
Distt. Shamli, U.P.- 247775
Aged about 21 years
(Group 'C')
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Ajesh Luthra)
VERSUS
1. Commissioner of Police
PHQ, MSO Building,
IP Estate, New Delhi
2. Deputy Commissioner of Police
Police Control Room,
Model Town, Delhi
3. Joint Commissioner of Police
(Headquarters)
PHQ, MSO Building,
IP Estate, New Delhi.
....Respondents
(By Advocate: Bijender Singh Sharma)
2026.02.13
RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30'
Item No.48/C-IV 2 OA No.2278/2019
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
By filing the instant OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-
"a) Quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 03/04/2019, 14/02/2017, 23/05/2017 and 12/01/2018 including impugned note under clause 4 standing order 39/2018 placed at Annexure A/1, A/2, A/3, A/4 and A/5 respectively.
b) Direct the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds.
c) Accord all consequential benefits.
d) Award costs of the proceedings; and
e) To pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal
may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice in favour of the applicant."
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The facts, as stated by the applicant, are that :
2.1 The father of the applicant, namely, Subhash Chand, who was working as Head Constable in Delhi Police, unfortunately expired on 16.10.2012 while in service. Due to sudden death of his father, the applicant's entire family came under financial crisis; therefore, the respondents were requested to consider the claim of applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds. In the said representation, the applicant explained that the deceased employee, namely H.C. Subhash Chand, left behind widow, 2 (two) unmarried daughters and 1(one) minor son without any financial source of income. It was also stated that due to sudden death of only earning member in the family, it became difficult for the family to meet both ends.
2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 3 OA No.2278/2019 2.2 On 29.08.2013, the concerned officials heard the applicant's family genuine grievances and assured for positive action. However, no positive decision was taken and vide letter dated 29.08.2013 (Annexure A/6), the applicant's mother, namely, Sunesh Devi, was advised to submit application for appointment of his son, i.e., applicant on attaining the age of 18 years.
2.3 In January 2016, as the applicant's family financial condition was deteriorating day by day, therefore, the applicant immediately on attaining of 18 years applied for considering his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds as per rules and the procedure prescribed by the respondents vide Standing Order No. 39/14 (Annexure A/7). 2.4 The said request of the applicant was considered by the respondents, however, details of aforesaid consideration was not provided to the applicant as evident from impugned letter dated 14.02.2017 (Annexure A/3). A perusal of said letter would show that except stating that the case of applicant was found not covered under the criteria prescribed in DOP&T instructions and Standing Order No. 39/14, no reasons have been recorded.
2.5 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, the applicant's mother submitted another detailed representation dated 27.04.2017 to the respondents for considering claim of applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the respondents have rejected the aforesaid representation by taking a new plea as evident from impugned letter dated 23.05.2017 (Annexure A/4) wherein it has been stated that the applicant cannot be granted 2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 4 OA No.2278/2019 appointment on compassionate grounds inasmuch as, Late H.C Subhash Chand was facing FIR No. 442/2017, u/s 409, 420 & 411. 2.6 As the reasons recorded in the aforesaid rejection letter were contrary to rules and the law on the subject, therefore, the applicant's mother again submitted representation to the respondents for considering the claim of applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds. In the said representation, the respondents were also informed that the aforesaid Criminal Case got abated on 04.03.2017 itself and in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against applicant's father on the same allegations on which aforesaid FIR was registered, the disciplinary authority passed final order exonerating the applicant's father and treated the intervening suspension period as spent on duty for all purposes (Annexure A/8).
2.7 The respondents rejected the said representation also as evident from impugned order dated 12.01.2018 (Annexure A/5) on the same grounds by referring the same FIR, which had already resulted in acquittal and exoneration in disciplinary proceedings. 2.8 Thus, it is clear from the aforesaid facts that the applicant's mother was pursuing the claim of applicant by submitting representations, however, unfortunately the applicant's mother also expired in November 2018 leaving behind applicant and his two sisters namely, Nupur 28 years and Antim 25 years.
2.9 All the aforesaid facts and circumstances were duly brought to the notice of respondents through responsible persons of the Society of the area. However, except giving assurances, nothing was done by the 2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 5 OA No.2278/2019 respondents and the same has caused irreparable loss to the applicant and his family. The applicant and his two sisters are dependent on the relatives and family friends. Unfortunately, even after knowing about aforesaid extreme family circumstances, the respondents did not take any action to give appointment to the applicant on compassionate grounds.
2.10 In the above facts and circumstances, the applicant filed OA No.578/2019 before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide order dated 20/02/2019 (Annexure A/9) disposed of the said OA by directing the respondents to take into account the quashing of the FIR, dropping of departmental charge-sheet and reconsider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 03 months and liberty was accorded to the applicant to approach this Tribunal, if his grievance still subsists. 2.11 In purported compliance of the aforesaid order of this Tribunal, the respondents have issued an order dated 03/04/2019 (Annexure A/1), whereby they have rejected the appointment matter of the applicant on the premise that "since late HC Subhash Chand, No. 644/PCR was involved, as also charge-sheeted in a criminal case vide FIR No. 442/2007 u/s 409/420/411 IPC, PS Mandawli, and more so was found involved in undesirable activities while being a member of a disciplined force, the case of candidate Shri Harsh Malik for compassionate ground appointment in Delhi Police could not be approved by the Screening Committee considering the provisions of S.O. No. 39/2018".
2026.02.13
RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30'
Item No.48/C-IV 6 OA No.2278/2019
2.12 It is stated that the eligibility criteria mentioned in standing
order no. 39/2018 (Annexure A/10) is reproduced here as follows:-
"(4) Eligibility Criteria Dependent family member of the following categories of Government servant shall be eligible for this scheme:-
(i) Who dies while in service (including death by suicide);
(ii) Who is retired on medical grounds under Rule 2 of the CCS (Medical Examination) Rules, 1957 or the corresponding provision in the Central Civil Service Regulations before attaining the age of 55 years (57 years for Group 'C', MTS) Government servants;
(iii) Who is retired on medical grounds under Rule 38 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 or the corresponding provision in the Central Civil Service Regulations before attaining the age of 55 years (57 years for Group 'C', MTS) Government servants;
(iv) Who dies during the period of extension in regular service but not during re-employment.
NOTE The benefit of compassionate ground appointment will not be available to the dependants of a Govt. servant, in case the Govt. servant was involved in any criminal cases and other undesirable activities or was dismissed from service for his proven involvement in criminal cases and other undesirable activities. While considering such requests, the results of the police investigation should also be taken into account." 2.13 It is also stated that the respondents have considered the case of the applicant in the light of provisions of SO No.39/2018 and more specifically, under the note mentioned above. It is submitted that the provisions contained in the note are extraneous and have no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The objective of compassionate appointments is to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to a dependent family member of a Government servant dying in harness or who is retired on medical grounds, thereby leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, to relieve the family of the Government servant concerned from financial destitution and to 2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 7 OA No.2278/2019 help it get over the emergency. The service record of the deceased Government servant has no bearing towards the said objective. While considering the matter of compassionate appointment, the Government is not required to go into the service records of its deceased employee. In fact, no record is gone into. A compassionate appointment cannot be granted merely on the grounds that the deceased Government servant has been a decorated officer. Likewise, compassionate appointment cannot be declined merely on the ground that a deceased Government had suffered some kind penalty or punishment during his service career.
2.14 Here is a case where the deceased Government employee i.e. the father of the applicant has not been proved guilty in any criminal case. Under the law, there is a presumption that a person is innocent unless proved otherwise. Therefore, not only the impugned note placed at Annexure A/2 is ultra vires, illegal and unconstitutional having no reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved but also the decision taken by the respondents to deny compassionate appointment merely on the grounds that the father of the applicant was facing a criminal trial is bad and untenable in law. It is also stated that the stipulation that while considering such request the result of police investigation shall also be taken into account is superfluous as a charge-sheet is filed by the police after completion of the police investigation only. Therefore, in every case where the charge-sheet has been filed after police investigation, it would not really matter, as to what was the result of police investigation.
2026.02.13
RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30'
Item No.48/C-IV 8 OA No.2278/2019
2.15 It is also stated that impugned note places a disqualification
towards consideration of a dependent family member for
compassionate appointment. Such disqualification cannot be
countenanced in law. The descendants of a person who may have committed a crime and may have been found guilty and punished thereto cannot be branded as a criminal. Even if the antecedents of a Government employee are proved to be bad, the descendants cannot be made to inherit the same. Therefore, the impugned note is bad in law and liable to be struck down. Hence, this OA.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their reply opposing the claim of the applicant. The applicant has also filed rejoinder refuting the contents of the reply filed by the respondents.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned orders/actions of the respondents are absolutely illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
4.1 Learned counsel argued that the respondents have rejected the claim of applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds without appreciating that the applicant and his unmarried sister have neither any movable property nor immovable property and surviving on the mercy of distant relative. Even the financial condition of married sister is worst, as the applicant's mother had borrowed money for her marriage and unfortunately died without repaying the said debt.
2026.02.13
RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30'
Item No.48/C-IV 9 OA No.2278/2019
4.2 Learned counsel submitted that while rejecting the claim of
applicant on compassionate grounds vide impugned orders, the respondents have failed to take note of their own orders issued while finalizing the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant's father. When the respondents on their own exonerated the applicant's father from all the charges and treated the suspension period also as 'spent on duty', how could the allegations made basis to initiate for aforesaid departmental enquiry/disciplinary proceedings be made basis to deny appointment to the applicant on compassionate grounds. The respondents have also not cared to re-examine the case of the applicant as directed by this Tribunal vide order dated 20.02.2019 in OA No.578/2019.
4.3 Learned counsel argued that the respondents have mis- interpreted Clause-4 of S.O. No.39 as evident from the impugned order itself. The said Clause is applicable in such cases where the Govt. Servant is found involved in criminal cases and other undesirable activities or dismissed from service for the proven involvement in criminal cases and other undesirable activities. However, in the case of applicant, none of aforesaid conditions were existing inasmuch as, the applicants father was not involved in criminal cases and the only case which was registered against him got abated and in the disciplinary proceedings initiated on the same set of facts, the applicant's father was exonerated as evident from the order of criminal court dated 04.03.2013 at page 41 of the paper book.
2026.02.13
RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30'
Item No.48/C-IV 10 OA No.2278/2019
4.4 Learned counsel submitted that the respondents also failed to
consider that the deceased employee was survived by o2 daughters and 01 son, therefore, the applicant's case could not have been said to be less deserving. One more most important factor of non-availability of movable or immovable property was also ignored by the respondents. 4.5 Learned counsel also submitted that the financial condition of the applicants has worsen by passage of time for want of any financial help.
4.6 Learned counsel argued that the applicant has already completed his education and is fit in all respect for the service on compassionate grounds.
4.7 Learned counsel contended that the respondents have acted in highly illegal and arbitrary and discriminatory manner, as they have given appointment on compassionate ground not on the basis of relevant factors such as financial conditions of the family which includes the total earning members, dependents, moveable property, immoveable property etc. but on irrelevant consideration and the same is apparent from the fact that the such candidates have been given appointment, who had not regular source of income, but were also having moveable and immoveable property of lacs of rupees. Thus, the respondents have acted in violation of guidelines and instructions issued by the competent authority for giving appointment on compassionate grounds as well as acted in violation of provisions of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India in not putting the name of the applicant at appropriate place in the approved list. When the less 2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 11 OA No.2278/2019 deserving candidates were given place in the approved and finally appointed, how could the applicant be deprived from appointment. 4.8 Learned counsel also submitted that the case of the applicant was one of most deserving cases for appointment on compassionate grounds as evident from the fact that he has neither any movable property nor immovable and in addition, he has the responsibility of one unmarried sister.
4.9 Learned counsel without prejudiced to the above contentions stated that the impugned note under clause 4 of SO No.39/2018 is illegal, unreasonable, ultra vires and hence liable to be set aside, as the provisions contained in the note are extraneous and have no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The objective of compassionate appointments is to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to a dependent family member of a Government servant dying in harness or who is retired on medical grounds, thereby leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, to relieve the family of the Government servant concerned from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The service record of the deceased Government servant has no bearing towards the said objective. While considering the matter of compassionate appointment, the Government is not required to go into the service records of its deceased employee. In fact, no record is gone into. A compassionate appointment cannot be granted merely on the ground that the deceased Government servant has been a decorated officer. Likewise, compassionate appointment cannot be declined merely on the ground 2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 12 OA No.2278/2019 that a deceased Government had suffered some kind of penalty or punishment during his service career. Here is a case where the deceased Government employee i.e. the father of the applicant has not been proved guilty in any criminal case. Under the law, there is a presumption that a person is innocent unless proved otherwise. Therefore, not only the impugned note placed at Annexure A/2 is ultra vires, illegal and unconstitutional having no reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved but also the decision taken by the respondents to deny compassionate appointment merely on the grounds that the father of the applicant was facing a criminal trial is bad and untenable in law.
4.10 Learned counsel also stated that the stipulation that while considering such request the result of police investigation shall also be taken into account is superfluous as a charge-sheet is filed by the police after completion of the police investigation only. Therefore, in every case, where the charge-sheet has been filed after police investigation, it would not really matter, as to what was the result of police investigation.
4.11 Learned counsel argued that impugned note places a disqualification towards consideration of a dependent family member for compassionate appointment. Such disqualification cannot be countenanced in law. The descendants of a person who may have committed a crime and may have been found guilty and punished thereto cannot be branded as a criminal. Even if the antecedents of a Government employee are proved to be bad, the descendants cannot 2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 13 OA No.2278/2019 be made to inherit the same. Therefore, the impugned note is bad in law and liable to be struck down.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
5. Learned counsel raised preliminary submission that direction to give compassionate appointment several years after the death of the deceased Govt. employee is not justified. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Sima Banerjee in Civil Appeal No.251 of2017, in which it has been held as under:
"The Central Administrative Tribunal directed the appellant to consider the claim of the respondent on merits and this view has been upheld by the High Court. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis as laid down by this Court in Umesh Kumar NagpalVs. State of Haryana &Ors. 1994 (4) SCC 138 and in State of U.P. &Ors. Vs. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi 2003 (11) SCC 178. Thus, direction to give compassionate appointment several years after death was not justified. We are in agreement with the above submission ... "
5.1 Learned counsel by referring to the reply also stated that HC Subhash Chand, No.644/PCR (PIS No.28824210) was enlisted in Delhi Police as temporary constable on 01.11.1986 and he was promoted to the rank of Head Constable on 23.10.2000. He expired on 16.10.2012 due to sudden death. Smt. Sunesh W/o late HC Subhash Chand, No. 644/PCR made a request on 10.02.2016 for appointment of her son namely, Harsh Malik, on compassionate ground as Constable in Delhi Police. The name of candidate Shri Harsh Malik (here-in-after referred to as applicant) S/o late HC Subhash Chand, No.644/PCR was considered for the post of Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police by the Police Establishment Board in its meeting held on 2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 14 OA No.2278/2019 13.01.2017 but could not be approved, as the case is not covered under Clause-4 of S.O. No.39/2014.
Note: "The benefits of compassionate ground appointment will not be available to the dependents of a Govt. Servant, in case the Govt. Servant was involved in Criminal Cases & other undesirable activities or was dismissed from service for the proven involvement in criminal cases & other undesirable activities. While considering such requests, the results of the police investigation should also be taken into account."
5.2 Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that in the instant case, a complaint was received against late HC Subhash Chand, No.644/PCR that a Maruti Car No. DL-2CE-9808 was deposited in Police Station Mandawali under 66 D.P. Act. When the owner did not take his car upto two years, then the deceased i.e. HC Subhash Chand, No.644/PCR, MHC (M) wrote an application himself and got released the car in his name on 23.08.2004. An enquiry was got conducted by ACP/PG Cell and it was found that Maruti Car No.DL-2CE-9808 was stolen from Noida (U.P.) and a case FIR No.949/02 u/s 379 IPC, was got registered in PS Sector-20 Noida (UP) on 03.12.2002. The said car was found abandoned at Technology Apptt. IP Extn, PS Mandawali, which was deposited in the Malkhana of PS Mandawali vide DD No.46 B, dt. 4.12.02 u/s 66 DP Act by SI Ashok Kumar. The deceased HC was not registered owner of the car as on 23.08.2004 and the said car was got released illegally by the deceased HC. The allegations were proved against the late HC. Hence, a case vide FIR No.442, dated 19.09.2007 u/s 409 IPC, PS Mandawali was registered against late HC Subhash Chand, No.644/PCR by DCP/East Distt. On having been involved/arrested in the criminal case, the late Head Constable was placed under suspension w.e.f. 01.12.2007 i.e. date of arrest by 2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 15 OA No.2278/2019 DCP/PCR, Delhi vide order No.2016-501HAP (P-IV)/PCR, dated 05.02.2008 and a Departmental Enquiry proceeding against the late Head Constable was also contemplated by Addl.DCP (GA)/PCR, vide order No.31060-130/HAP/P-IIIPCR, dated 16.11.2010. 5.3 After completion of investigation, the charge sheet of case FIR No.442/07 u/s 409/420/411-IPC, PS Mandawali was filed in the court on 21.04.2010. On receipt of summary of allegations & list of witnesses, a Departmental Enquiry was also ordered against Head Constable Subhash Chand, 644/PCR by Addl. DCP (GA), PCR, Delhi vide order No.20167-201/HAP (P-II)/PCR, dated 10.08.2011. 5.4 In the meanwhile, HC Subhash Chand, No.644/PCR, accused in case FIR No.442 u/s 409/420/411 IPC, PS Mandawali, expired on 16.10.2012. As such, on account of the death of accused HC Subhash Chand, No.644/PCR, the case proceedings against him were abated by Ld. CMM (East) vide order dated 04.03.2013 (Annexure R-2). 5.5 Learned counsel for the respondents also refer to the provisions of FR-54 B(2), which reads as under:-
"Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 53, where a Government Servant under suspension dies before the disciplinary or the Court proceedings instituted against him are concluded, the period between the date of suspension and the date of death shall be treated as duty for all purposes and his family shall be paid the full pay and allowances for that period to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended, subject to adjustment in respect of subsistence allowance already paid."
5.6 Learned counsel submitted that accordingly, after the death of the deceased Govt. Employee, i.e. father of the applicant on 16.10.2012, his suspension period from 01.12.2007 to 16.10.2012 was decided as period 'spent on duty' for all intents and purposes under the provisions 2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 16 OA No.2278/2019 of FR-54 B (2). Besides, the D.E. initiated against the late HC was also dropped and the name of late HC was also removed from the list of police personnel involved in criminal cases vide order No.19324- 413/HAP-IV/PCR, dated 07.11.2012. However, an amount of Rs.15,35,800/- as pensionary benefits and Family Pension of Rs.7150/- +RIP was granted to the family of the deceased. 5.7 Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that in pursuance of Order dated 20.02.2019 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No.578/2019 titled Harsh Malik Vs. GNCT, Delhi & Ors. in which this Tribunal has observed that "the applicant pleaded that since the FIR itself had been quashed the reason of FIR, given for rejection of compassionate ground appointment, cannot be accepted. The applicant had been making requests to the respondents to review his request and when nothing materialized, he had filed the instant O.A." This Tribunal has disposed of the O.A. at admission stage itself, without going into the merits of the case, with directions to the respondents to take into account the quashing of the FIR and dropping of departmental charge sheet, re-consider the case of said applicant, son of late Shri Subhash Chand, Head Constable for compassionate ground appointment and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months of receipt of certified copy of the said Order. 5.8 Learned counsel also submitted that while considering compassionate ground appointment cases, the Screening Committee kept in mind the following instructions/guidelines:
2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 17 OA No.2278/2019
(i) Govt. of India's instructions issued vide O.M. No. 14014/6/94-Estt. (D) dated 9.10.98 (Annexure R-3).
(ii) Govt. of India's O.M. No. 14014/6/95-Estt.(D) dated 26.5.95 vide which it has been held that "compassionate appointment can be made up to a maximum of 5% of the vacancies falling under the direct recruitment quota in group 'C' posts"
(Annexure R-4).
(iii) Supreme Court of India's Judgment of February 6, 2006 in Civil Appeal No.996 of 2006 (arising out of SLP (C) No.21811 of 2004) titled Chief General Manager, SBI & Ors. Vs Durgesh Kumar Tiwari on the subject in which the court has observed that "As can be seen from the narration of the development of law at the outset, the pensionary benefits could be taken into account for the purpose of determining the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee".
(iv) Govt. of India's O.M. No.14014/6/94/Estt.(D) dated 9.10.98 regarding Belated requests for compassionate appointment.
(v) Supreme Court of India's judgment of May 4, 1994 in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs State of Haryana on the subject in which the court has observed that "mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such sources of livelihood. The Govt. or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right, which can be exercised at any time in future. The whole object is being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of death of the sole bread winner, the compassionate 2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 18 OA No.2278/2019 employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over".
(vi) Standing Order No.39/2018 issued by the Delhi Police (Annexure R-5).
The case of Sh. Harsh Malik S/o late HC Subhash Chand, No.644/PCR for compassionate ground appointment in Delhi Police has been again reviewed by the Screening Committee. Since late HC Subhash Chand, No.644/PCR was involved, as also charge-sheeted, in a Criminal Case vide FIR No.442/2007 u/s 409/420/411 IPC, PS Mandawali and more so was found involving in undesirable activities while being a member of disciplined force, the case of candidate Shri Harsh Malik for compassionate ground appointment in Delhi Police could not be approved by the Screening Committee, as the case is not covered under S.O. No.39/2018. Accordingly, a detailed order was issued vide order No.8838/AC-CG/P.Br./PHQ, dated 03.04.2019. 5.9 Learned counsel by referring to the reply submitted that the applicant's father HC Subhash Chand, No.644/PCR expired on 16.10.2012. The applicant's mother namely Smt. Sunesh has made a representation on 10.02.2016 for the appointment of her son Harsh Malik i.e. applicant in Delhi Police on compassionate grounds as Constable (Exe.). However, an amount of Rs.15,35,800/- as pensionary benefits and Family Pension of Rs.7150/- + RIP was granted to the family of the deceased. However, it was informed to Smt. Sunesh Devi (applicant's mother) vide letter dated 29.08.2013 that at present the applicant is minor and hence, no assurance could be given at this stage. However, the applicant's mother was advised that 2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 19 OA No.2278/2019 she may apply for compassionate ground when her son attains the age of 18 years and then the case will be considered on merit at that time. 5.10 Learned counsel reiterated that the case of the applicant was considered by Police Establishment Board in its meeting held on 13.01.2017 and rejected as the case was not covered under the criteria of DOP&T instructions and Standing Order No.39/2018. 4.6 A case FIR No.442/2007 u/s 409/420/411 IPC, PS Mandawaliwas registered against the deceased. Since deceased was expired on 16.10.2012, the case was abated by MM, Karkarduma Court, vide order dated 04.03.2013, it was intimated that the case was not covered under the criteria of Standing Order No.39/2014, hence, request could not be approved by Police Establishment Board. A speaking and elaborate order was passed in which the details of clause 4 of S.O. No.39/2014 was mentioned. Learned counsel emphasised that HC Subhash Chand, No.644/PCR (applicant's father), accused in case FIR No.442 u/s 409/420/411 IPC, PS Mandawali, had expired on 16.10.2012. As such, on account of the death of accused HC Subhash Chand, No.644/PCR, the case proceedings against him were abated by Ld. CMM (East) vide order dated 04.03.2013. The deceased was not exonerated from the charges whereas as per rule FR-54 B (2), his suspension period was decided and the DE initiated against the deceased was dropped and his name was also removed from the list of police personnel involved in criminal cases vide order dated 07.11.2012.
5.11 Learned counsel also submitted that the representation of the applicant was received from Addl. PS to MOS for Water Resources, 2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 20 OA No.2278/2019 River Development & Ganga Rejuvenation through Ministry of Home Affairs and accordingly, a detailed reply was sent to MHA vide letter dated 02.02.2018 in which it is clearly mentioned that the case of applicant was considered by Police Establishment Board in its meeting held on 13.01.2017 but could not be approved as the case is not covered under S.O. No.39/2014.
5.12 Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the present OA deserves to be dismissed by this Tribunal.
6. In response to the reply/contentions of the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant by referring to the rejoinder submitted that so far as preliminary submission in which the extract of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Sima Banerjee (supra) has been referred, however, the respondents have not mentioned as to what they seek to convey by quoting the same. The respondents have assigned specific reason disqualifying the applicant for compassionate appointment, as such the said judgment is not applicable in this case. 6.1 Learned counsel for the applicant besides reiterating the submissions as noted above submitted that the father of the applicant was not involved as alleged. Merely because of an investigation report, which is subject to judicial scrutiny by way of trial, the father of the applicant can be branded as a criminal and the family can be disqualified from seeking compassionate appointment. The impugned policy is bad in law, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and has no reasonable nexus with the 2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 21 OA No.2278/2019 object sought to be achieved. The said impugned provision is illegal and liable to be set aside.
6.2 In support of the claim of the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on paras 1 and 2 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Smt. Saroja Shivakumar vs State Bank of Mysore, reported in ILR 1996 KAR 2655 : 1996 (6) KARLJ 384, which reads as under:-
"1. It is now well settled law that a public authority particularly in its dealings with its employees is required to act fairly but the time has come to amplify that requirement by specifically adding on one more dimension namely the duty to act humanely. Normally, this requirement would have been considered to be implicit in the former but experience has shown that Institutions often act with a degree of rigidity and severity by insisting on technical and strict compliance with the rules which is construed as fair treatment in so far as the letter of the law is observed but this unfortunately falls short of the requirement in so far as when dealing with human beings, the special factors and circumstances, many of which are situational and which are inter-twined with the facts of the case, cannot either be dissected or separated in the process of decision making. This very important aspect has been directly thrown up in the present case which involves a few other significant dimensions of law which I shall presently deal with. The facts are rather simple and can be briefly summarised in that the present petitioner is the wife of late R.Shiva Kumar who was last employed as a Manager by the Respondent- Bank namely the State Bank of Mysore. He was holding the post of Manager of the Lokkanahalli Branch of the Bank in Mysore District. It is alleged that in the course of his duties, he had committed certain acts of misconduct which consisted of opening bogus accounts in the names of certain persons, showing loans having been sanctioned to them which in fact were appropriated by the Manager himself. The Bank's case is that through such a modus operandi the late Shivakumar is alleged to have misappropriated approximately Rs. 58,000/-. The Bank, by order dated 6.2.92 placed him under suspension. At the relevant time he was in a rather precarious condition in so far as he was suffering from a serious heart complaint in addition to several other attendant circumstances. The suspension order was followed by a charge sheet dated 19.8.92 and an amendment dated 10.3.93. The charge sheet was further added to on 28.9.93. An enquiry was commenced which made some headway in so far as the Enquiry Officer commenced the proceedings, a few hearings were held but before the enquiry could be completed, Shivakumar passed away on 26.11.1993. The Bank did not settle the dues of the petitioner for two reasons the first being that it contended that there was material to indicate that the deceased had committed acts of misconduct involving pecuniary loss of Rs. 58,000/- to the Bank and secondly that there were certain amounts outstanding from him under various heads such as 2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 22 OA No.2278/2019 house loan etc. Shivakumar had left behind his widow, a son and daughter and it is contended by the Wife of the late Shivakumar who is the petitioner before me that the family suffered great financial distress as a result of his illness and his death and that in the course of the medical treatment, the family had incurred huge expenditure which meant taking of loans. An application was therefore made requesting that in view of the compassionate employment scheme which was at that time in operation that the petitioner's son should be employed by the Bank in his place. Similarly, the petitioner wife had agitated the question regarding the various dues payable to the petitioner by the Bank and in view of the fact that the Bank refused to either employ her son or to settle these dues, she has filed the present petition praying for appropriate reliefs.
2. The contentions taken up in the petition are of some consequence. Firstly it is contended that irrespective of the charges that the late Shivakumar had to face, that the disciplinary proceeding had not concluded and that consequently, the same abates on his death which means that the respondents are wrong in seeking to fasten any liability on Shivakumar in respect of those charges which have not reached a stage of finality. The consequent submission is that if the disciplinary proceedings have not concluded with an adverse order against Shivakumar, that the period of suspension will have to be treated as on duty and that therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to claim along with the dues payable to him, the difference in salary between the subsistence allowance paid to him during the period of suspension and his normal salary which he would have been entitled to receive but for the suspension order. Simultaneously, it is contended that the whole function and purpose of formulating the compassionate employment scheme is that when the dependants of an employee are virtually orphaned or plunged into distress that at the earliest point of time the Institute must provide relief by way of employment to another member of the family in order to soften the blow. This Court has had occasion to observe while dealing with compassionate employment schemes which are applicable to organisations such as the present one that speedy relief is of utmost consequence in the administration of these schemes as otherwise it not only frustrates the whole purpose but renders the scheme counter productive. The petitioner has contended that the Bank sent her a reply to the effect that they cannot consider her son for employment and that this was obviously because her late husband had been suspended on certain charges. She contends that if the enquiry has abated, the Bank ought to have proceeded with a dean state basis as though no such charges were in existence because these were never established. The last contention is that even if there are any amounts adjustable against the loans etc., that these could easily have been transferred to the son if he was given employment and that if such a procedure had been followed, the Bank would have still recovered its money without having to subject the family to the trauma of having almost the whole of the dues that were receivable by the petitioner adjusted in one whole instalment against the outstanding loan. Obviously, the rationale behind these contentions is that had Shivakumar continued to serve the Bank, that the loans would have been repayable on a deferred basis and if this is the position, merely because of his unfortunate death, the misery should not be compounded by seeking a 2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 23 OA No.2278/2019 one time recovery and straight away adjusting the greater part of the terminal dues against these outstanding thereby leaving the widow and the family with hardly anything in the balance."
6.3 Lastly, learned counsel for the applicant prayed that the instant OA be allowed.
ANALYSIS
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record as well as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon a careful examination of the pleadings, material placed on record and the rival submissions advanced, we are of the considered view that the controversy involved in the present Original Application centres around certain pivotal questions of fact and law. Accordingly, for the just and effective adjudication of the dispute, the following issues arise for adjudication by this Tribunal:
(i) Whether rejection of compassionate appointment on the ground of alleged involvement of deceased employee in criminal case, despite abatement of proceedings and dropping of DE, is legal and sustainable?
(ii) Whether the Note under Clause-4 of Standing Order No.39/2018 disqualifying dependents due to alleged criminal involvement of deceased employee is arbitrary, ultra vires and violative of Articles 14 & 16?
(iii) Whether the respondents complied with the Tribunal's earlier order dated 20.02.2019 requiring reconsideration through a reasoned and speaking order?
2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 24 OA No.2278/2019
(iv) Whether delay in seeking compassionate appointment disentitles the applicant in the facts of the present case? 8.1 However, before delving upon the above noted issues, we deem it appropriate to observe that the applicant assails the impugned orders primarily on the ground that the rejection of his claim for compassionate appointment is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the very object of compassionate employment schemes. It is contended that the family of the deceased employee has been facing acute financial distress since the death of the sole breadwinner and is devoid of any movable or immovable property or stable source of income. The applicant submitted that despite it is an admitted position that the abatement of the criminal case on account of death of his father (Govt. Employee) and the dropping of departmental proceedings, wherein the deceased was treated as having been on duty, the respondents continued to rely upon unproven allegations to deny compassionate appointment to the applicant. According to the applicant, such reliance is misconceived, contrary to law and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The impugned note under Clause-4 of Standing Order No.39/2018 is also challenged as ultra vires and having no reasonable nexus with the objective of compassionate appointment, which is intended solely to mitigate financial hardship of the bereaved family. It is further urged by the applicant that the respondents failed to undertake a fair and holistic assessment of the applicant's financial conditions and ignored relevant considerations such as the absence of property, dependency of unmarried siblings and the deteriorating 2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 25 OA No.2278/2019 financial circumstances of the family. The applicant also asserted that less deserving candidates were allegedly granted compassionate appointment while his case was rejected on extraneous grounds. Reliance has also been placed on judicial precedents as noted above emphasising humane and fair treatment in matters relating to compassionate employment and the principle that unproven allegations against a deceased employee cannot be used to penalise dependants.
8.2 On the other hand, the respondents justify the rejection by contending that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and must be granted strictly in accordance with the applicable policy, instructions and judicial precedents. It is submitted that the applicant's case was duly considered by the competent Screening Committee but could not be approved in view of Clause-4 of Standing Order No.39/2018, as the deceased employee had been charge-sheeted in a criminal case involving serious allegations and was found involved in undesirable activities while serving in a disciplined force. The respondents further emphasised that compassionate appointment is meant to address immediate financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a matter of course after lapse of considerable time, particularly, when the family has already received substantial terminal and pensionary benefits. The respondents also maintained that earlier directions of this Tribunal were complied with by reconsidering the applicant's case and passing a reasoned and speaking order, however, the same is also challenged by the applicant in the present OA. They further submitted 2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 26 OA No.2278/2019 that the criminal proceedings against the deceased had merely abated due to death and did not result in exoneration on merits, and therefore, the policy restrictions were rightly invoked. It is thus contended that the decision of the Screening Committee was taken in accordance with applicable rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements governing compassionate appointments, and hence, the present Original Application deserves dismissal.
9. So far as issue No.(i) as mentioned in para 8 above, i.e., (i) whether rejection of compassionate appointment on the ground of alleged involvement of deceased employee in criminal case, despite abatement of proceedings and dropping of DE, is legal and sustainable, is concerned, we observe that admittedly the alleged criminal proceedings abate on the death of the deceased Govt. Employee vide the concerned competent Court vide order dated 04.03.2013 (page 41 of the paperbook). As such, no finding of guilt survives. It is also an admitted position that departmental enquiry initiated against the applicant also dropped, the period of suspension of the deceased Govt. employee, i.e., father of the applicant, was decided as period spent on duty for all intents and purposes under the provisions of FR-54(B)(2), applicant's father name was also removed from the list of police personnel involved in criminal case and therefore, no stigma remains, as is evident from page 42 of the paperbook. 9.1 We observe that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence and service law consequences flowing from criminal proceedings. It means that every person is 2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 27 OA No.2278/2019 presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty by a competent court through due process of law. The burden of proving guilt always lies upon the prosecution, and mere allegations, suspicion, or pendency of proceedings do not establish guilt. Further, the presumption of innocence is a human right and a component of fair trial under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It protects individuals from arbitrary punishment or adverse civil/service consequences merely on accusation. The principle continues throughout trial and strengthens after acquittal. The core elements behind this is that an accused is innocent until guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt, burden of proof lies on prosecution, benefit of doubt goes to the accused, acquittal reinforces presumption of innocence. 9.2 At this stage, we deem it profitable to refer the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in (1973) 2 SCC 808, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if two views are possible on the evidence, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted. Presumption of innocence is a golden thread in criminal jurisprudence. The relevant paras of the said judgment read as under:-
"23. Observations in a recent decision of this Court, Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033] to which reference has been made during arguments were not intended to make a departure from the rule of the presumption of innocence of the accused and his entitlement to the benefit of reasonable doubt in criminal cases. One of the cardinal principles which has always to be kept in view in our system of administration of justice for criminal cases is that a person arraigned as an accused is presumed to be innocent unless that presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by production of evidence as may show him to be guilty of the offence with which he is charged. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused is upon the prosecution and unless it relieves itself of that burden, the courts cannot record a finding of the guilt of the accused. There are certain cases in which statutory presumptions arise regarding the guilt of the accused, but the burden even in those cases is upon the prosecution to prove the existence of facts 2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 28 OA No.2278/2019 which have to be present before the presumption can be drawn. Once those facts are shown by the prosecution to exist, the Court can raise the statutory presumption and it would, in such an event, be for the accused to rebut the presumption. The onus even in such cases upon the accused is not as heavy as is normally upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. If some material is brought on the record consistent with the innocence of the accused which may reasonably be true, even though it is not positively proved to be true, the accused would be entitled to acquittal.
24. Leaving aside the cases of statutory presumptions, the onus is upon the prosecution to prove the different ingredients of the offence and unless it discharges that onus, the prosecution cannot succeed. The Court may, of course, presume, as mentioned in Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. The illustrations mentioned in that Section, though taken from different spheres of human activity, are not exhaustive. They are based upon human experience and have to be applied in the context of the facts of each case. The illustrations are merely examples of circumstances in which certain presumptions may be made. Other presumptions of a similar kind in similar circumstances can be made under the provisions of the Section itself. Whether or not a presumption can be drawn under the Section in a particular case depends ultimately upon the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down. Human behaviour is so complex that room must be left for play in the joints. It is not possible to formulate a series of exact propositions and confine human behaviour within strait-jackets. The raw material here is far too complex to be susceptible of precise and exact propositions for exactness here is a fake.
25. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence, the Court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the Court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have the benefit of that doubt. Of course, the doubt regarding the guilt of the accused should be reasonable; it is not the doubt of a mind which is either so vacillating that it is incapable of reaching a firm conclusion or so timid that is is hesitant and afraid to take things to their natural consequences. The rule regarding the benefit of doubt also does not warrant acquittal of the accused by report to surmises, conjectures or fanciful considerations. As mentioned by us recently in the case of State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh [(1974) 3 SCC 227 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 886] a criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and phantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the Court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the Courts should not at the same time 2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 29 OA No.2278/2019 reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures.
26. It needs all the same to be re-emphasised that if a reasonable doubt arises regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit of that cannot be withheld from the accused. The Courts would not be justified in withholding that benefit because the acquittal might have an impact upon the law and order situation or create adverse reaction in society or amongst those members of the society who believe the accused to be guilty. The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record. Indeed, the Courts have hardly any other yardstick or material to adjudge the guilt of the person arraigned as accused. Reference is sometimes made to the clash of public interest and that of the individual accused. The conflict in this respect, in our opinion, is more apparent than real. As observed on p. 3 of the book entitled The Accused by JA Coutts 1966 Edition, "When once it is realised, however, that the public interest is limited to the conviction, not of the guilty, but of those proved guilty, so that the function of the prosecutor is limited to securing the conviction only of those who can legitimately be proved guilty, the clash of interest is seen to operate only within a very narrow limit, namely, where the evidence is such that the guilt of the accused should be established. In the case of an accused who is innocent, or whose guilt cannot be proved, the public interest and the interest of the accused alike require an acquittal."
9.3 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narendra Singh & Anr. v. State of M.P., reported in (2004) 10 SCC 699, observed that presumption of innocence is a human right and once a person is acquitted, the presumption of innocence is further reinforced. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced below:-
"28. The High Court, therefore, considered the escape of the assassin of Bimlabai through one of the two gaps as possible but did not assign any reason as to how the same can be said to have been established. Furthermore, it does not appear that such a case was made out by the prosecution. Investigation in this behalf does not appear to have been carried out to show as to whether it was possible for a person to climb the wall before slipping out of one of the two places mentioned by the High Court nor was any material in support thereof brought on record. The witnesses did not say that they had seen any footmark of any person on the wall nor does any other evidence suggest that one of the two open places would otherwise be used by the offender as possible escape routes. If the time of incident is taken to be nearer 5 p.m. than 3.30 p.m., it would be well-nigh impossible for Appellant 1 to climb the wall, sneak through the open places and jump from the window to the lane without being noticed. It also does not appear that the attention of the appellants had been drawn by the Sessions Judge to any piece of evidence seeking their explanation thereabout in their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Had it been the prosecution case that Appellant 1 after throttling the deceased and setting her on fire escaped through one of the two open places mentioned by the High Court, it was obligatory on the part of the Court to give an opportunity to the appellants to explain thereabout. Such a circumstance, had it been put to Appellant 1, could 2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 30 OA No.2278/2019 have been explained away by him. The appellants were, therefore, prejudiced by not being given a chance to explain the said purported material against them. It is not a case where no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the appellants.
29. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge to the effect that had any person slipped or gone away from that window, pedestrians through the lanes must have seen such person cannot, in our opinion, be said to be irrational warranting interference by the High Court. If the observations of the High Court to the effect that persons going through the road do not keep a vigil on such movements, is correct, the same by itself would give rise to some surmises keeping in view the fact that there existed a greater possibility of Appellant 1 being seen as his jumping from the window would have been abnormal which would attract the attention of the persons who had assembled to take water from the tap. We also fail to see any force in the finding of the High Court to the effect that only because Appellant 1 was the husband of the deceased he had a chance to throttle her all of a sudden without any resistance. The finding of the High Court to the effect that Gulbadanbai having sustained burn injuries on her hand, the probability of her presence at the time of setting of fire cannot be ruled out, is contradictory to its ultimate finding that she was guilty of offence only under Section 201 of the Penal Code, 1860 and not under Sections 302/34 thereof.
30. It is now well settled that benefit of doubt belonged to the accused. It is further trite that suspicion, however grave may be, cannot take place of a proof. It is equally well settled that there is a long distance between "may be" and "must be".
................
32. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. Pieces of circumstances, however strong may be, it is well known that all links in the chain must be proved. In this case a vital link in the chain viz. possibility of Appellant 1 committing the offence, closing the door and then sneaking out of the room from one of the two places had not been proved by the prosecution."
9.4 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 16 SCC 417, again held that presumption of innocence is a human right subject to statutory exceptions. The relevant para of the said judgment reads as under:-
"71. The extent of right to a fair trial of an accused must be determined keeping in view the fundamental rights as adumbrated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as also the International Convention and Covenants chartered in human rights. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the criminal justice delivery system prevailing in our country lacks mechanisms to remedy systemic violations of the accused's core constitutional rights which include the right to effective assistance of counsel, the right to have exculpatory evidence disclosed, and the right to be free from suggestive eyewitness identifications, coerced custodial interrogation and the fabrication of evidence. (See "Aggregation in Criminal Law" by Brandon L. Garrett, April 2007, cal. l. rev., Vol. 95, No. 2, p. 385 at 393.)"
2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 31 OA No.2278/2019 9.5 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, held that presumption of innocence continues till conviction and is a key factor in bail jurisprudence. The relevant portion of the same is as under:-
"A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty...."
9.6 It is also apt to mention that the principle of "no vicarious penal consequence on dependents" flows from the fundamental rule of criminal jurisprudence that criminal liability and punishment are strictly personal. A person cannot be punished, disqualified, or deprived of legal benefits merely because a relative or predecessor was accused or allegedly involved in wrongdoing, unless a specific statutory disqualification exists. This principle has strong constitutional backing under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and has been repeatedly recognised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We also observe that administrative or civil benefits (such as compassionate appointment, pensionary benefits, service entitlements) cannot be denied solely due to allegations against the deceased employee unless there is a statutory bar; or proven misconduct leading to legal disqualification. Article 14 of the Constitution, prohibits arbitrary discrimination; penalising dependents for another's alleged misconduct is manifestly arbitrary and Article 21, guarantees fairness and due process; punishment without personal guilt violates substantive due process. Further, rule 2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 32 OA No.2278/2019 against collective punishment is inherent in Indian constitutional jurisprudence.
9.7 It is profitable to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417, wherein it has been held that presumption of innocence is a human right; guilt must be individually established. Thus, we observe that if the accused himself is presumed innocent until conviction, dependents cannot be subjected to penal consequences. 9.8 In Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412, the Hon'ble Apex Court ruled that compassionate appointment schemes must be applied fairly; rejection cannot be based on irrelevant or extraneous considerations.
9.9 Thus, keeping in view above guiding observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as noted above, we hold that pendency of Criminal Case against deceased employee, which was abated upon the death of a Govt. employee, no finding of guilt survives. Dependents cannot be denied benefits merely due to allegations. Unless a statutory rule specifically disqualifies dependents, denial of compassionate appointment or benefits is legally unsustainable. We also observe that administrative Orders must be based on objective scheme criteria. Imposing indirect punishment on family members amounts to arbitrariness violative of provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, it is a settled principle of law that criminal liability and penal consequences are strictly personal and cannot be vicariously imposed upon dependents or family members. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has 2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 33 OA No.2278/2019 consistently held that adverse civil or penal consequences must be founded on proven misconduct and cannot flow from mere allegations or association. In Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417, the Apex Court recognised presumption of innocence as a human right. As such when, it is admitted position that upon demised of the deceased Govt. employee, the criminal proceedings abated and the fact that the disciplinary proceedings also in respect of the same allegations had been dropped by the respondents with grant of treatment of suspension period as period 'spent of duty' and the fact that deceased employee's name had also been removed from the list of police personnel involved in criminal cases and the admissible terminal benefits were granted to the legal heirs of the deceased Govt. Employee, hence, rejection on the ground of said criminal case is legally unsustainable. Accordingly, this issue (i) is answered in favour of the applicant.
10. So far as issue No. (ii) as mentioned in para 8 above, i.e., whether the Note under Clause-4 of Standing Order No.39/2018 disqualifying dependents due to alleged criminal involvement of deceased employee is arbitrary, ultra vires and violative of Articles 14 & 16, is concerned, we observe that policy must have rational nexus with the object sought to achieve, be non-arbitrary and not impose hereditary stigma. In State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court ruled that policy decisions subject to constitutional scrutiny. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saroja Shivakumar (supra), the Hon'ble Karnataka 2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 34 OA No.2278/2019 High Court emphasised that public authorities must act not only fairly but also humanely, especially while dealing with bereaved families. Since the disciplinary proceedings had not concluded and abated on the employee's death, the Bank could not fasten unproven liability or deny legitimate dues and compassionate consideration solely on the basis of pending charges. The authority was expected to adopt a compassionate and reasonable approach, ensuring that technicalities do not aggravate the financial distress of the deceased employee's dependents.
10.1 At this stage, we deem it appropriate to refer the Note as mentioned at the end of para (4) ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA of Standing Order No.39/2014 (Compassionate appointment in Delhi Police), which reads as under:
"NOTE : The benefit of compassionate ground appointment will not be available to the dependants of a Govt. servant, in case the Govt. servant was involved in any criminal cases and other undesirable activities or was dismissed from service for his proven involvement in criminal cases and other undesirable activities. While considering such requests, the results of the police investigation should also be taken into account."
10.2 The above Note is the sole ground for rejection of the case of the applicant for grant of compassionate ground as is evident from impugned order dated 03.04.2019 (Annexure A-1), which order had been passed by the respondents in compliance of the directions of this Tribunal vide Order dated 20.02.2019 in an earlier OA, being OA No.578/2019, filed by the instant applicant. It is pertinent to note that earlier OA was disposed of without going into the merit of the claim of the applicant. As we have already observed that so far as facts and 2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 35 OA No.2278/2019 circumstances of this particular case, the case of the applicant does not come within the ambit of the said Note. As such, rejection of the claim of the applicant on this ground alone is not sustainable in the eyes of law. However, as pleaded by the applicant, we are not inclined to declare the said Note as ultra vires, illegal and arbitrary in the instant case, as we already observe that the case of the applicant ought not to have been rejected on the basis of the said Note keeping in view the factual matrix of this case and the observations made hereinabove. Thus, this issue (ii) is answered accordingy.
11. So far as issue No.(iii) as mentioned in para 8 above, i.e., whether the respondents complied with the Tribunal's earlier order dated 20.02.2019 requiring reconsideration through a reasoned and speaking order, we observe that this Tribunal had merely directed the respondents to reconsider the applicant's case for compassionate appointment by passing a reasoned and speaking order, specifically taking into account the quashing of the FIR and the dropping of the departmental chargesheet. In purported compliance with the said directions, the respondents passed the order dated 03.04.2019, which is presently under challenge in this OA. Accordingly, the limited issue of compliance with the earlier direction stands answered to the extent that a speaking order has been passed, while the legality and sustainability of the said order fall for independent examination in the present proceedings. This issue (iii) is answered accordingly.
12. So far as issue No.(iv) as mentioned in para 8 above, whether delay in seeking compassionate appointment disentitles the applicant 2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 36 OA No.2278/2019 in the facts of the present case, is concerned, upon consideration of the factual matrix noted hereinabove, we find that no delay can be attributed to the applicant. It is an admitted position that immediately after the demise of the applicant's father, the applicant's mother had submitted a representation seeking compassionate appointment for the applicant. However, as the applicant was a minor at the relevant time, the respondents themselves advised that a formal application be submitted upon the applicant's attaining majority. Pursuant thereto, the requisite application was submitted within a reasonable time after the applicant attained majority. As no decision was taken by the respondents, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 578/2019, which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide Order dated 20.02.2019 with directions for reconsideration. In purported compliance, the respondents passed the order dated 03.04.2019 rejecting the claim by relying upon Note under para 4 of SO No. 39/2014, which is under challenge in the present OA. Accordingly, the plea of delay is unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
13. In the above facts and circumstances and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the present OA is disposed of with the following directions:-
(i) The impugned orders dated 03.04.2019 (Annexure A/1),
14.02.2017 (Annexure A/3), 23.05.2017 (Annexure A/4) and 12.01.2018 (Annexure A/5) are quashed;
(ii) The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the applicant for grant of compassionate appointment, if he is 2026.02.13 RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30' Item No.48/C-IV 37 OA No.2278/2019 otherwise fit and fulfils other parameters for grant of such appointment under the Scheme for appointment on compassionate ground; and
(iii) The respondents are directed to comply with the above direction as early as possible and preferably within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
14. There shall be no order as to costs.
15. Pending MA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ravi/
2026.02.13
RAVI KANOJIA15:38:46+05'30'