AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 17.02.2003 (Annexure P /2) whereby imposition of punishment of removal from service on the father of the petitioner from service has been converted to compulsory retirement w.e.f. 6.7.1985, pursuant to the order dated 17.7.2002 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (for short ''the SAT'') in O.A. No. 393/1989, and the order dated 02.04.2004 (Annexure P/11) whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, who was the dependent of Late Ramdhan Kashyap, Constable, who died on 3.9.2000, was rejected, without assigning any reason by the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Raipur.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner challenged the order dated 4.7.1985 whereby his father being a Constable in Police Department, was imposed with a punishment of removal from service after conducting a departmental enquiry, before the SAT. The learned SAT after having heard learned Counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that no interference was required in the findings of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority on the basis that the same was perverse and was based on no evidence. Thus, the findings of the enquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority was upheld. However, having regard to the imposition of punishment of removal from service, it was directed that the same may be considered by the authorities, afresh for modification of the order of removal from service. Pursuant to that, the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, having considered all the aspects of the matter, modified the order of dismissal from service to that of compulsory retirement w.e.f. 6.7.1985.
Shri Pandey further submits that there was allegation of breaking the glass of the door of the Punjab National Bank, Korba, only, which has caused loss for not more than Rs. 125/-, and thus, imposition of such a punishment is disproportionate.
On the contrary, Shri Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the State/respondents 2, 4, 5 and 6 submits that the father of the petitioner was a member of police force wherein discipline is required. The father of the petitioner, while misusing his office, exceeded his jurisdiction and broke the glass of the door of the bank and such a person cannot be allowed to continue in police force, as police force is meant to maintain law and order and peace in the society. The father of the petitioner took law in its own hands.
On consideration and perusal of the pleadings and documents, contention of Shri Roy merits acceptance. It is well settled that a man in uniform is expected to be more disciplined as heavy responsibility is on the shoulder of a member of police force to maintain law and order and peace in the society. If a police personnel starts indulging into breaking law and order, the civil society may be put in peril.
The Supreme Court, in State of U.P. and Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Singh and Anr. observed that a police constable, serving in disciplined force, which demands strict adherence to the rules and procedure more than any other department, in absenting himself from duty without permission, has committed grave misconduct, which has rightly resulted into removal from service.
Further, in Commissioner of Police v. Syed Hussain the Supreme Court observed that in view of the nature of duties that a protector of law is required to perform, it cannot be said that the disciplinary authority had committed any error imposing the punishment of removal from service upon the respondent, particularly when on several occasions he has been found guilty of misconduct.
Further contention of Shri Pandey that the reasons stated by the Assistant Inspector General of Police, vide its order dated 02.4.2004 (Annexure P/11) that the father of the petitioner died before creation of the State of Chhattisgarh, thus, the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment cannot be considered, is bad in law, unjust and illegal.
Shri Roy, learned Panel Lawyer, in response submits that it is not the case of death of an employee in harness. The father of the petitioner died on 03.09.2000 and he was compulsorily retired from service on 06.07.1985. The petitioner was initially terminated from service and thereafter, on reconsideration, was retired compulsorily. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled as his father did not die in harness.
It is well settled that only those cases may be considered for grant of appointment on compassionate basis where an employee dies in harness as the sole purpose of granting compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief and succor to the penurious family in distress. Appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of recruitment, but is a facility to provide for immediate rehabilitation of the family in distress for relieving the dependent family members of the deceased employee from destitution. In other words, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and is not to provide employment. (See: Haryana State Electricity Board and Anr. v. Hakim Singh; State of Manipur v. Md. Rajaodin and State of J and K and Ors. v. Sajad Ahmed Mir).
In view of the foregoing and for the reasons stated hereinabove, no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
No order asto costs.