Kishanlal Raikwar S/o Late Balu Raikwar v Union of India and others
Central Administrative Tribunal
JABALPUR BENCH
6 August 2013
Original Application No. 661 of 2010
The Judgment was delivered by : G. P. Singhal (Administrative Member)
1. The applicant worked with the Respondent No 3 from 1966 onwards, when he was appointed on the post of Store Keeper, till he was removed from service vide the order dated 19.08.1980. The applicant was at that time working as Supervisor-B (Non-Technical) and, on finding him involved in alleged theft of certain goods, he was dismissed by the respondents from service after conduct of Departmental Inquiry under Rule 14 ofย Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
The applicant thereafter preferred mercy appeal dated 13.08.2007(Annexure A/2) to the respondent authorities, which was rejected vide letter dated 05.10.2008 (Annexure A/3) of respondent No 3. It was mentioned in the rejection letter that in the absence of relevant documents of the disciplinary case, it may not be possible to take any action at the request of the applicant.
2. The applicant thereafter filed Original Application No 305/2009 before this Tribunal which was disposed of vide order dated 01.07.2009 (Annexure A/4) with the direction to the respondents to consider applicant s request for grant of compassionate allowance in terms of Rule 41 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred as the Pension Rules ) read with decision taken thereon, by passing speaking and detailed order within a time frame.
In this regard the applicant preferred representation dated 28.07.2009 before the respondent authorities. However, it has been rejected by the respondent No 3 vide their order dated 12.10.2009 (Annexure A/1). Hence, this Original Application.
3. The respondents, in their reply, submitted that in compliance to the direction given vide order dated 01.07.2009 in Original Application No 305/2009 by this Tribunal, the case of applicant has been considered and decided vide order dated 12.10.2009 (Annexure A/1). The applicant was charge-sheeted for gross misconduct of committing theft of Government property on 19.04.1978 and after conducting proper departmental enquiry he was removed from service.
Thereafter, the applicant had preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority which too was dismissed. Now his case for compassionate allowance, as per Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, has been sympathetically considered.
However, as the applicant was punished for stealing defence items from defence installation, the compassionate allowance has been denied to him as per the rules in this regard. Thus, the present Original Application, being without any merits, deserves to be dismissed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents annexed herewith.
5. We find that Government of India s orders in regard to guiding principles of recommending compassionate allowance (G.I.F.D, Office Memo No 3 (2)-R-II/40 dated 22nd April, 1940) clearly provide that: Where the course of misconduct carries the legitimate inference that the officers service has been dishonest, there can seldom be any good case for a compassionate allowance. The applicant in this case was punished for theft of goods from defence installation and therefore it was not a proper case for grant of compassionate allowance.
Thus, respondents cannot be faulted in denying compassionate allowance to him and rejecting the representation filed by him in this regard, vide their order dated 12.10.2009 (Annexure A/1).
6. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any justification for interfering with the orders of the respondents in this matter. Therefore, Original Application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Application dismissed
