Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Dhanesh Dutt Sharma vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghthan on 31 July, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.896/2017
PRONOUNCED ON: 31.07.2025
RESERVED ON: 04.07.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
Dhanesh Dutt Sharma, Ex-PGT (Hindi), K.V. No.1, Ambala Cantt.,
R/O Vill. Jhill, Sirhind Road, Jhill Chowk, Patiala (Senior Citizen
aged 70 years)(Group-B).
.... Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Abhivadya Sood).
Versus
1. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
2. Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18-Institutional
Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional
Office, SCO 72-73, Sector 31-A, Chandigarh.
4. Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Chandigarh Region, Sector 31-A, Chandigarh.
....Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. P.M. Kansal).
KAMLA Digitally signed by KAMLA DEVI
DN: C=IN, S=Haryana, Phone=
10d7987dd4a8aacfad9360ba903bda3f4c8af2ad599ef7f95112c485da704d31,
PostalCode=134116, STREET=DO Chandan Singh HOUSE No1262 First Floor
Sector19 Panchkula, OID.2.5.4.65=1440e9763d5e4f52bef95c81dbcf9f5b, T=0038,
SERIALNUMBER=
a8020b659a8c3d8f8edf96aa669156e2b571c782ec5724add6afa6fcaed8e465, O=
Personal, CN=KAMLA DEVI
DEVI
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 13:14:54+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
2
ORDER
PER: MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
1. Present original application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking following relief:-
a) Quash Order No. F.9-90/2002-KVS(Vig.)/3099-3103 dated 18.04.2016, (Annexure A-1) and order dated 25.01.2017 (Annexure A-2) issued by Respondent No. 2 having no jurisdiction wherein the representation of the Applicant dated 15.02.2016 for grant of Compassionate Allowance under Rule 41 of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 along with interest 18% w.e.f. the date the amount became due till the actual date of payment and also release of cash value of the un-utilized leave at the credit of the Applicant as on 19.08.2002 along with interest @ 18% w.e.f.
the date the amount became due till the actual date of payment has been rejected.
b) To direct the Respondents to modify the sanction dated 15.03.2016 (A-3) to the extent that the applicant is paid pension and gratuity both @ 2/3rd of the pension and gratuity otherwise admissible for the service rendered.
c) Direct the Respondents to release cash value of leave unutilized with interest.
d) For issuance of directions to the Respondents to grant the Compassionate Allowance to the Applicant w.e.f. 19.08.2002 at the rate of 2/3 of the pension and gratuity both and to release the arrears thereof along with interest @ 18% w.e.f. the date the amount became due till the actual date of payment and to release cash value of the unutilized leave at the credit of the applicant as on 19.08.2002 along with interest @18% w.e.f. the date the amount became due till the actual date of payment with all consequential benefits.
2. Facts of the case, as pleaded by the applicant are that the applicant joined service as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT-
Sanskrit) on 19.07.1979. He was selected as Post Graduate Teacher (PGT-Hindi) and joined as such in July 1984. On 02.2.1996, the applicant was issued charge-sheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and he submitted his reply on 17.02.1996. On 12.06.2002, regular departmental inquiry was KAMLA Digitally signed by KAMLA DEVI DN: C=IN, S=Haryana, Phone= 10d7987dd4a8aacfad9360ba903bda3f4c8af2ad599ef7f95112c485da704d31, PostalCode=134116, STREET=DO Chandan Singh HOUSE No1262 First Floor Sector19 Panchkula, OID.2.5.4.65=1440e9763d5e4f52bef95c81dbcf9f5b, T=0038, SERIALNUMBER= a8020b659a8c3d8f8edf96aa669156e2b571c782ec5724add6afa6fcaed8e465, O= Personal, CN=KAMLA DEVI DEVI Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 13:14:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 3 held in which report is submitted by the Inquiry Officer. Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 19.08.2002 imposed the penalty of "Removal from Service" which is not a bar for future Government Service. Applicant submitted an Appeal against the order of removal dated 19.08.2002. Appeal of the applicant is also rejected on 16.10.2003. Applicant filed O.A. No. 1255-PB-2003 assailing the orders dated 12.06.2002, 19.08.2002 and 16.10.2003. The O.A. is dismissed vide order dated 29.06.2004. Order of the Tribunal was challenged by the applicant before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, was dismissed vide order dated 27.07.2006. Thereafter, SLP filed by the applicant was dismissed by Hon'ble Apex Court on 02.01.2006 and Review Petition was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 27.07.2006. The applicant made representations for grant of pensionary benefits, available under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (Annexure A-4 and A-5). Respondent No.2 requires the competent authority i.e. Respondent No. 4 to take a decision on the representations of the applicant. Representations of the applicant were rejected by authority, which was not the competent authority.
3. The Applicant filed the Original Application No.060/00539/2015 before this Hon'ble Tribunal challenging the order dated 28.05.2015. Vide order dated 21.01.2016, the said Original Application was disposed of with direction to the applicant to KAMLA Digitally signed by KAMLA DEVI DN: C=IN, S=Haryana, Phone= 10d7987dd4a8aacfad9360ba903bda3f4c8af2ad599ef7f95112c485da704d31, PostalCode=134116, STREET=DO Chandan Singh HOUSE No1262 First Floor Sector19 Panchkula, OID.2.5.4.65=1440e9763d5e4f52bef95c81dbcf9f5b, T=0038, SERIALNUMBER= a8020b659a8c3d8f8edf96aa669156e2b571c782ec5724add6afa6fcaed8e465, O= Personal, CN=KAMLA DEVI DEVI Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 13:14:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 4 make a representation which shall be decided by the Respondents in accordance with rules and law. The Applicant made comprehensive representation to the Respondents in compliance to the directions dated 21.01.2016. Vide order dated 15.03.2016 (Annexure A-3), Sanction is issued by respondent No.3 competent authority holding the applicant entitled to compassionate allowance. Respondent No.2 having no jurisdiction to decide the claim, rejected the representation of the Applicant in violation of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 by passing a totally illegal and arbitrary order not sustainable in the eyes of law. Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 25.01.2017 (Annexure A-2), withdrew the sanction order dated 15.03.2016, without opportunity.
4. The grievance of the applicant is that the Respondent No. 3 competent Disciplinary Authority has considered the detailed representation dated 15.02.2016 portraying unblemished glorious service of 23 years and the claim of the Applicant for grant of benefit under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and held the applicant entitled to the benefit under rule ibid, vide order dated 15.03.2016 (Annexure A-3) Respondent No. 2 having no jurisdiction, however, rejected the same vide impugned order dated 18.04.2016. Annexure A-1. Such authority is vested in the authority competent to dismiss or remove the Government servant from service. This power now KAMLA Digitally signed by KAMLA DEVI DN: C=IN, S=Haryana, Phone= 10d7987dd4a8aacfad9360ba903bda3f4c8af2ad599ef7f95112c485da704d31, PostalCode=134116, STREET=DO Chandan Singh HOUSE No1262 First Floor Sector19 Panchkula, OID.2.5.4.65=1440e9763d5e4f52bef95c81dbcf9f5b, T=0038, SERIALNUMBER= a8020b659a8c3d8f8edf96aa669156e2b571c782ec5724add6afa6fcaed8e465, O= Personal, CN=KAMLA DEVI DEVI Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 13:14:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 5 vests in Respondent No.3. Respondent no.2 has also withdrawn the sanction accorded by the competent authority i.e. Respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 25.01.2017 after about 1 year prospectively. Further, release of cash value of unutilized leave at the credit of the applicant as on 19.08.2002 along with interest @ 18% P.A. the same has not been considered at all. Hence, the present Original Application No.892/2017.
5. The respondents No.2 to 4 have filed written statement on 24.11.2017 submitting that respondent no.2 (Commissioner) being Chief Executive officer of the Sangthan and being the competent authority in this case and applicant had also made his representation to the said authority. Even if both the authorities passed orders simultaneously, the order of the higher authority would prevail in this case. In any case, order passed by respondent no. 3 being contrary to rules and law was only an error which could always be corrected and was corrected as per rules and law as it was withdrawn by the Higher Authority (Annexure R-2). The applicant cannot take benefit of a withdrawn order as such order does not create any right much less vested one in a dismissed employee. It has been further submitted by respondents issues raised by the applicant for granting him compassionate allowance was re-
examined and it was found that in view of Government of KAMLA Digitally signed by KAMLA DEVI DN: C=IN, S=Haryana, Phone= 10d7987dd4a8aacfad9360ba903bda3f4c8af2ad599ef7f95112c485da704d31, PostalCode=134116, STREET=DO Chandan Singh HOUSE No1262 First Floor Sector19 Panchkula, OID.2.5.4.65=1440e9763d5e4f52bef95c81dbcf9f5b, T=0038, SERIALNUMBER= a8020b659a8c3d8f8edf96aa669156e2b571c782ec5724add6afa6fcaed8e465, O= Personal, CN=KAMLA DEVI DEVI Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 13:14:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 6 India's decisions, Para 1 below rule 41 of CCS (pension) Rules, 1972. His appeal and revision petition were duly considered and rejected by the concerned Authorities for being devoid of merits. As such, applicant is not entitled for compassionate allowance in terms of the aforesaid provisions of GOI.
6. Further, request of the applicant for grant of pensionary/ service benefits and compassionate allowance was rejected as in terms of Rule 24 of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972, dismissal or removal of a Government servant from service or post entails forfeiture of his past service. As such, applicant is not entitled for consequential benefits like back wages, leave encashment, pension gratuity etc. and in terms of Government of India's Decisions Para 1 below Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. As such, applicant is not entitled for compassionate allowance also or encashment of leave. It is further submitted that in compliance of order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No.060/00539/2015, the issues raised by applicant for granting compassionate allowance, gratuity and other pensionary benefits in terms of Rule 41 of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 were considered by the Commissioner, KVS, who was of the considered view that it has been stipulated in Govt. of India's Decision Para 1 below Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 that "where the course of misconduct carries with it the legitimate inference that the KAMLA Digitally signed by KAMLA DEVI DN: C=IN, S=Haryana, Phone= 10d7987dd4a8aacfad9360ba903bda3f4c8af2ad599ef7f95112c485da704d31, PostalCode=134116, STREET=DO Chandan Singh HOUSE No1262 First Floor Sector19 Panchkula, OID.2.5.4.65=1440e9763d5e4f52bef95c81dbcf9f5b, T=0038, SERIALNUMBER= a8020b659a8c3d8f8edf96aa669156e2b571c782ec5724add6afa6fcaed8e465, O= Personal, CN=KAMLA DEVI DEVI Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 13:14:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 7 Officer's service has been dishonest, there can seldom be any good case for grant of compassionate allowance. Poverty is not essential condition precedent to the grant of compassionate allowance". The misconduct committed by applicant was of grave nature reflecting disloyalty to his duty and Organization and, therefore, unpardonable.
7. It has further been submitted that the Commissioner is the competent authority and as such has rightly rejected claim of the applicant. The order passed by respondent no.3 was immediately withdrawn by the said authority on realising that it was based on an error. It is well settled that that a factual mistake can be rectified as held in Jagdish Prajapat Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others, 1998 (2) ATJ, P-286. It has been held in Anand Prakash Vs. State of Punjab, 2005 (4) RSJ, 749 and Raj Kumar Batra Vs. State of Haryana, 1992 (1) SCT, 129, that as and when a mistake is detected, the employer is within its right to rectify a mistake. In Chandigarh Administration Vs. Narang Singh, JT 1997 (3) SC, P-536, it has been held that a mistake can be corrected at any time. The plea, raised by the applicant that respondent no.3 is the competent authority and as such respondent no.2 could not reject the claim of the applicant, does not hold any ground as the appointing authority of the applicant is the Commissioner (Respondent No.2) only and as such it was well KAMLA Digitally signed by KAMLA DEVI DN: C=IN, S=Haryana, Phone= 10d7987dd4a8aacfad9360ba903bda3f4c8af2ad599ef7f95112c485da704d31, PostalCode=134116, STREET=DO Chandan Singh HOUSE No1262 First Floor Sector19 Panchkula, OID.2.5.4.65=1440e9763d5e4f52bef95c81dbcf9f5b, T=0038, SERIALNUMBER= a8020b659a8c3d8f8edf96aa669156e2b571c782ec5724add6afa6fcaed8e465, O= Personal, CN=KAMLA DEVI DEVI Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 13:14:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 8 within his power and authority to reject the claim of the applicant and as such O.A. merits dismissal. In any case, order passed by Commissioner would have priority over order passed by Deputy Commissioner, who exercises powers under delegation by the Commissioner.
8. The order of the Tribunal dated 23.08.2018 in O.A. No.896/2017 was challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court by way of CWP No.7105/2019. Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 20.02.2025 remanded back the case to the CAT with direction to consider the arguments on the question of legality and validity of the order passed by Commissioner on 18.04.2016 (Annexure A-1) rejecting representation for compassionate allowance under pension rules. Relevant para of the said order are extracted as under:-
"16. We, therefore, remand the case to the CAT with liberty to both the parties to address arguments on the question of legality and validity of the order passed by the Commissioner on
18.04.2016 on merits. It is expected from learned CAT to decide the said issue expeditiously preferably within a period of three months. The case be listed before the CAT on 05.03.2025. For the said purpose, the OA shall be revived to its original number and heard on merits. The present writ petition stands disposed of with the above-said directions."
9. We have considered the facts on record as well as submissions by both the parties in the light of above decisions and have perused Revision of Education Code for KVS updated up to 94th BOG meeting held on 28.12.2012. We find that respondent No.2 Commissioner KVS is the Executive Head Officer of the KAMLA Digitally signed by KAMLA DEVI DN: C=IN, S=Haryana, Phone= 10d7987dd4a8aacfad9360ba903bda3f4c8af2ad599ef7f95112c485da704d31, PostalCode=134116, STREET=DO Chandan Singh HOUSE No1262 First Floor Sector19 Panchkula, OID.2.5.4.65=1440e9763d5e4f52bef95c81dbcf9f5b, T=0038, SERIALNUMBER= a8020b659a8c3d8f8edf96aa669156e2b571c782ec5724add6afa6fcaed8e465, O= Personal, CN=KAMLA DEVI DEVI Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 13:14:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 9 Sangathan the Chief Administrator and responsible for proper administration of the Sangathan. He is assisted by two Additional Commissioners, five Joint Commissioners and four Deputy Commissioners. The Deputy Commissioner's power and functions have been placed on record vide MA No.1413 of 2023. As per Article 21(a) he has power to make appointments to teaching and non-teaching posts in Gr. B (except vice Principal. The applicant being TGT, the appointing authority will be Deputy Commissioner Under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 authority competent to dismiss or remove from service can consider issue of compassionate allowance. The order for removal i.e. punishment order was passed by Disciplinary Authority i.e. Assistant Commissioner now re-designated as Deputy Commissioner. Hence the plea raised by the applicant that respondent No.3 (Deputy Commissioner) is the competent authority is correct. The action by respondent No.2 (Commissioner) in abrogating the power of a subordinate authority to himself and then rejecting claim of the applicant is not valid.
10. We have meticulously examined the impugned orders dated 18.04.2016 (Annexure A-1) and 25.01.2017 (Annexure A-2).
We find that the impugned orders are non-speaking and non-
reasoned. From perusal of the impugned orders, it is evident that respondent No.2 has not examined complete records vis a KAMLA Digitally signed by KAMLA DEVI DN: C=IN, S=Haryana, Phone= 10d7987dd4a8aacfad9360ba903bda3f4c8af2ad599ef7f95112c485da704d31, PostalCode=134116, STREET=DO Chandan Singh HOUSE No1262 First Floor Sector19 Panchkula, OID.2.5.4.65=1440e9763d5e4f52bef95c81dbcf9f5b, T=0038, SERIALNUMBER= a8020b659a8c3d8f8edf96aa669156e2b571c782ec5724add6afa6fcaed8e465, O= Personal, CN=KAMLA DEVI DEVI Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 13:14:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 10 vis facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 25.01.2017 (Annexure A-2) has been passed by respondent No.2 with non-adherence to principles of natural justice. No opportunity of hearing has been granted to applicant before passing impugned orders. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following judgments:-
i. In Balwant Singh Kataria vs. State of Haryana 1997 (3) SCT 475, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court as under:-
The benefits once conferred upon a civil servant, even though under some erroneous assumptions, cannot be withdrawn without affording him opportunity of hearing. It is not for the employer to decide as to what possible defence can be taken by the civil servant and giving opportunity to the employee was necessary or not - The principles of natural justice cannot be put in a strait jacket nor allowed to be measured or weighed by the authority responsible for compliance thereof - Reversion order by cancellation of promotion passed without hearing or show cause notice is liable to be quashed with all consequential benefits to the petitioner.
ii. In Balraj Singh vs. UOU & others 2006(3) SLR 654, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court as under:-
Petitioner duly selected and appointed as T-II-3 - Respondents reverted him after 6 years to the post of T-1 without issuing any show cause notice and complying with the rules of natural justice Order of reversion liable to be quashed.
iii. In Managing Comm. of Sr. GTB Khalsa College vs. Director Public Instructions(Colleges) Punjab Chandigarh and others 2007(1) SCT 846, it has been held by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court as under:-
An order of imposition of punishment of reduction in rank/ reversion cannot be passed without following proper procedure of enquiry and full opportunity to the employee Order passed in breach of principles of natural justice cannot be sustained.
KAMLA Digitally signed by KAMLA DEVI DN: C=IN, S=Haryana, Phone= 10d7987dd4a8aacfad9360ba903bda3f4c8af2ad599ef7f95112c485da704d31, PostalCode=134116, STREET=DO Chandan Singh HOUSE No1262 First Floor Sector19 Panchkula, OID.2.5.4.65=1440e9763d5e4f52bef95c81dbcf9f5b, T=0038, SERIALNUMBER= a8020b659a8c3d8f8edf96aa669156e2b571c782ec5724add6afa6fcaed8e465, O= Personal, CN=KAMLA DEVI DEVI Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 13:14:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 11 iv. In The Punjab Argo Industries Corporation Limited vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh and others 2009(7) SLR 518, it has been held by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court as under:-
The benefit once conferred upon a civil servant, even though under an erroneous assumption, cannot be withdrawn without affording opportunity of hearing.
v. In Union of India and others vs. Davinder Kumar Gandhi and another, it has been held by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court as under:-
In the absence of specific denial of benefit of compassionate allowance at the time of dismissal of an employee, the right of employee is not forfeited-An employee who has been dismissed may lodge his claim at a subsequent point of time.
Since the respondent No.2 vide impugned orders has withdrawn the benefit granted vide order dated 15.03.2016, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and not sustainable.
Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Mahender Dutt Sharma vs. UOI with regard to determination of claim under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 has held as under:-
"13. In our considered view, the determination of a claim based under Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, 1972, will necessarily have to be sieved through an evaluation based on a series of distinct considerations, some of which are illustratively being expressed hereunder:-
(1) Was the act of the delinquent, which resulted in the infliction of the punishment of dismissal or removal from service, an act of moral turpitude? An act of moral turpitude, is an act which has an inherent quality of baseness, vileness or depravity with respect to a concerned person's duty towards another, or to the society in general. In criminal law, the phrase is used generally to describe a conduct which is contrary to community standards of justice, honesty and good morals. Any debauched, degenerate or evil behaviour would fall in this classification.
(ii) Was the act of the delinquent, which resulted in the infliction of the punishment of dismissal or removal from service, an act of dishonesty towards his employer? Such an action of KAMLA Digitally signed by KAMLA DEVI DN: C=IN, S=Haryana, Phone= 10d7987dd4a8aacfad9360ba903bda3f4c8af2ad599ef7f95112c485da704d31, PostalCode=134116, STREET=DO Chandan Singh HOUSE No1262 First Floor Sector19 Panchkula, OID.2.5.4.65=1440e9763d5e4f52bef95c81dbcf9f5b, T=0038, SERIALNUMBER= a8020b659a8c3d8f8edf96aa669156e2b571c782ec5724add6afa6fcaed8e465, O= Personal, CN=KAMLA DEVI DEVI Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 13:14:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 12 dishonesty would emerge from a behaviour which is untrustworthy, deceitful and insincere, resulting in prejudice to the interest of the employer. This could emerge from an unscrupulous, untrustworthy and crooked behaviour, which aims at cheating the employer. Such an act may or may not be aimed at personal gains. It may be aimed at benefiting a third party, to the prejudice of the employer.
(iii) Was the act of the delinquent, which resulted in the infliction of the punishment of dismissal or removal from service, an act designed for personal gains, from the employer?
This would involve acts of corruption, fraud or personal profiteering, through impermissible means by misusing the responsibility bestowed in an employee by an employer. And would include, acts of double dealing or racketeering, or the like. Such an act may or may not be aimed at causing loss to the employer. The benefit of the delinquent, could be at the peril and prejudice of a third party.
(iv) Was the act of the delinquent, which resulted in the infliction of the punishment of dismissal or removal from service, aimed at deliberately harming a third party interest? Situations hereunder would emerge out of acts of disservice causing damage, loss, prejudice or even anguish to third parties, on account of misuse of the employee's authority to control, regulate or administer activities of third parties. Actions of dealing with similar issues differently, or in an iniquitous manner, by adopting double standards or by foul play, would fall in this category
(v) Was the act of the delinquent, which resulted in the infliction of the punishment of dismissal or removal from service, otherwise unacceptable, for the conferment of the benefits flowing out of Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, 1972? Illustratively, any action which is considered as depraved, perverted, wicked, treacherous or the like, as would disentitle an employee for such compassionate consideration."
The claim of the applicant does not fall in the category of aforesaid, therefore, he is entitled to get relief under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The impugned orders dated 18.04.2016 (Annexure A-1) and 25.01.2017 (Annexure A-2) lack merit.
11. In view of the above legal proposition, impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Orders dated 18.04.2016 (Annexure A-1) KAMLA Digitally signed by KAMLA DEVI DN: C=IN, S=Haryana, Phone= 10d7987dd4a8aacfad9360ba903bda3f4c8af2ad599ef7f95112c485da704d31, PostalCode=134116, STREET=DO Chandan Singh HOUSE No1262 First Floor Sector19 Panchkula, OID.2.5.4.65=1440e9763d5e4f52bef95c81dbcf9f5b, T=0038, SERIALNUMBER= a8020b659a8c3d8f8edf96aa669156e2b571c782ec5724add6afa6fcaed8e465, O= Personal, CN=KAMLA DEVI DEVI Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 13:14:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 13 and 25.01.2017 (Annexure A-2) passed by the Commissioner, suffer from serious infirmity, are hereby quashed and sanction order dated 15.03.2016 is upheld.
12. The O.A. stands disposed of with the above observations.
No costs.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/kr/
KAMLA Digitally signed by KAMLA DEVI
DN: C=IN, S=Haryana, Phone=
10d7987dd4a8aacfad9360ba903bda3f4c8af2ad599ef7f95112c485da704d31, PostalCode=134116, STREET=DO Chandan Singh HOUSE No1262 First Floor Sector19 Panchkula, OID.2.5.4.65=1440e9763d5e4f52bef95c81dbcf9f5b, T=0038, SERIALNUMBER= a8020b659a8c3d8f8edf96aa669156e2b571c782ec5724add6afa6fcaed8e465, O= Personal, CN=KAMLA DEVI DEVI Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.08 13:14:54+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0