Krushnakant B. Parmar vs Union Of India & Anr on 15 February, 2012
Respondents rejected the
request for compassionate allowance on the grounds that the service records
and DAR proceedings are not available. This does not appear to be correct
since the applicant was provided with a copy of the service register when
sought under RTI. Further the respondents have admitted in the reply
statement that the applicant was removed from service for unauthorised
absence and deleted his name from the rolls of the respondents organisation
on 25.9.1987. Applicant was on unauthorised absence for reasons of poor
health and therefore he did not appeal when the early penalty of reduction
to a lower level was imposed, as explained by him in the OA. Unauthorised
absence for factors beyond the control of the employee like ill heath cannot
be construed as misconduct by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Krushnakanth B
Parmar and another Vs. Union of India reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178.
On a reading of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would make
it vivid and its relevance to the present case, as presented below: