Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Usha Devi vs M/O Defence on 10 May, 2022
1
O.A. No. 994/2019
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 994/2019
This the 10th day of May, 2022
Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman
Smt. Usha Devi,
(Wife of the deceased Pappu Safaiwala),
H. No. 334, Ekta Vihar,
Section -6, R.I. Puram,
New Delhi.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
South Block, Ravi Marg,
New Delhi.
2. Office of the J.S. (Tgn) & CAO,
E-Block, Dalhousie Road,
New Delhi- 110011.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Ranjan Tyagi)
2
O.A. No. 994/2019
ORDER (ORAL)
The applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) quash and set aside the order dated 18.04.2019 thereby holding the same as arbitrary and bad in law.
(b) to direct the competent authority to consider the claim of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS Pension rule based on the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahinder Dutt Sharma Versus Union of India & others and grant the same; and/or
(c) pass any other order or orders may deem fit in the circumstances of the case."
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant in the instant OA is the wife of late Pappu, who was working with the respondent No. 2 as Safai Karamchari. It is submitted that the deceased employee was not in sound state of mind and had no control over his senses. In the year 1997, one day he left for office and never returned home. A complaint regarding the same was lodged with the local police station by the applicant. In 1999, the applicant was informed by an unknown person that her husband had expired in Pune. The applicant reached Pune and with the help of local police, she traced the whereabouts of her husband and came to know that he expired in 1998. Consequently, she obtained a death certificate qua her deceased husband from Pune.
3. On a query made by the applicant in the year 2015 under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, she came to know that 3 O.A. No. 994/2019 the services of her deceased husband were dismissed after holding an enquiry prior to his death. It is submitted that when the applicant tried to obtain the documents relating to departmental enquiry against her deceased husband, she was told that the same were weeded out as per the guidelines of Records Retention Schedule of the respondents. However, she was given a copy of penalty order dated 25.09.1997 and a copy of the charge sheet dated 18.12.1995 along with covering letter dated 22.05.2015. It is further submitted that the deceased was alleged to have been unauthorizedly absent from service w.e.f. 03.07.1995 to 08.07.1996, as per the contents of memo of charges dated 18.12.1995 which fact also finds mention in the penalty order dated 25.09.1997. A leave application along with medical prescription and records of medical treatment, replying to the aforementioned penalty order were submitted by the deceased, and as per the earlier records, these were considered before imposing penalty. The deceased was also stated to be absent from duty from 05.08.1991 to 21.04.1992, and from 27.04.1994 to 10.10.1994, for which penalty was also imposed vide order dated 18.12.1992 & 24.04.1995 respectively. It is therefore, submitted that the deceased had already been given due punishment for his earlier absence from duty and hence, the punishment of dismissal from service, imposed on account of the absence from duty for the period from 03.07.1995 to 08.07.1996, is disproportionate. 4 O.A. No. 994/2019
4. The applicant, thereafter, made an application dated 25.05.2015 under RTI Act, 2005 seeking information pertaining to the Records Retention Schedule, and the records sought were provided by the respondent no.2 vide letter dated 29.06.2015, according to which in case of Group D employees, where departmental inquiry results in imposition of penalties, the records were weeded out after three years of the final disposal of the appeal or final judgment of law or till the prescribed retention period.
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the applicant submitted representation dated 30.11.2015 to the respondent No. 2, which was replied by the respondents vide letter dated 14.03.2016 stating that a Government Servant who is dismissed from service forfeits pensionary entitlements and as regards compassionate appointment, the same is considered for dependent family members of the Government Servant who died in harness or retired on medical grounds before attaining the age of 55 years (57 years for erstwhile Group-D employees).
6. It is stated that the applicant made a representation to the respondents dated 29.01.2019 (Annexure A-9) for grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The said representation was disposed of by the 5 O.A. No. 994/2019 respondents vide order dated 18.04.2019 whereby her claim was rejected by a non-speaking order. Hence, this OA.
7. The applicant places reliance upon Rule 41 of the Rules ibid, which provides that the authority competent to dismiss or remove a person 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. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahinder Dutt Sharma Versus Union of India & Anr. 2014 (11) SCC 684.
8. Respondents filed a counter affidavit opposing the OA stating that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against late Pappu, Ex-MTS vide Chargesheet dated 18.10.2015 under Rule 14 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 on account of his unauthorized absence from duty w.e.f. 03.07.1995 onwards. The penalty of 'dismissal' was imposed on him by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 25.09.1997. The case files relating to the disciplinary proceedings have been weeded out in June 2014 in compliance with the guidelines on Record Retention Schedule issued by Department of Administrative Reforms. Prior to imposition of penalty of dismissal from service, two penalties vide orders dated 18.10.1992 & 24.04.1995 were also imposed on late Pappu for 6 O.A. No. 994/2019 remaining absent unauthorizedly from duty, which were indicative of his conduct of remaining absent without leave and not improving his conduct. In the light of repeated offences and being a habitual late comer, a fresh penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on him, upon which no appeal/review petition against the 'Dismissal Order' was submitted by him. However, a representation dated 30.11.2015 was submitted by the applicant in the present OA, wherein she had requested for compassionate appointment and grant of family pension in respect of her deceased husband. The said penalty could not be reviewed as the Government employee is no longer alive.
9. It is the contention of the respondents that late Pappu was dismissed from service vide order dated 25.09.1997. However, according to the death certificate, late Pappu expired in Pune on 16.12.1998 and at the time of his death, he was not a government employee having been dismissed from service prior to death and accordingly the applicant could not claim compassionate appointment. Therefore the representation of the applicant for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected vide order dated 14.10.2016.
10. The rejoinder filed by the applicant is almost on the same lines and reiteration of the facts in the OA.
7O.A. No. 994/2019
11. Heard Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Ranjan Tyagi, learned counsel for the respondents.
12. The applicant has placed reliance upon Rule 41 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 for special consideration for grant of compassionate allowance, which reads as under:-
"(1) A government servant who is dismissed or removed from service shall forfeit his pension and gratuity;
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 compassionate pension."
13. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahinder Dutt Sharma (Supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is distinguishable as the applicant therein had rendered about 24 years of unblemished service during which he was granted 34 good entries, including 2 commendation rolls awarded by Commissioner of Police, 4 commendation certificates awarded by the Additional Commissioner of Police and 28 commendation cards awarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. In the instant case, however, the deceased admittedly had been habitual absentee and prior to his dismissal, he had already been punished twice for remaining unauthorizedly absent from duty. Hence the decision relied upon by the applicant is of no help.
8O.A. No. 994/2019
14. In considering the question of compassionate allowance, it has been the practice to take into account not only the actual misconduct or course of misconduct which occasioned the dismissal or removal of the officer, but also the kind of service he has rendered. Where the course of misconduct carries with it the legitimate inference that the officer's service has not been unblemished, there can seldom be any good case for a compassionate allowance. Poverty is not an essential condition precedent to grant compassionate allowance, but sepecial regard is also occasionally paid to the fact that the officer has a wife and children dependent upon him, though this factor by itself is not, except perhaps in the most exceptional circumstances, sufficient for grant of compassionate allowance.
15. As has been noted above, the deceased during his service had been habitual absentee and even prior to his dismissal, he had admittedly been imposed punishment twice, hence the case of the applicant for grant of compassionate allowances does not deserve special consideration.
16. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the instant OA is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Manjula Das) Chairman /Naas/