The act of committing an offence of moral turpitude, which affects the life of another individual and his family, can be a sufficient ground to disentitle a petitioner from grant of compassionate allowance under rule 41 of CCS Pension Rules, 1972.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--Petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 22.06.2016 whereby the representation of the petitioner for grant of compensation allowance under Rule 41 of CCS pension rules 1972 has been rejected. Petitioner further seeks award of compensation allowance under the aforesaid rule.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have erred in rejecting the representation of the petitioner on the ground that his entire service record which is liable to be considered was not taken into account and secondly because the order erroneously records that the petitioner did not have the total length of qualifying service of over 10 years. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Others, (2012) SCC Online Del. 4342 to contend that that 10 years qualifying service is not required under rule 41 of the CCS pension rule.

3. As per the petitioner he had joined and served the Indian army as Sepoy for a period of 5 years 1 month and 7 days and thereafter joined the respondent, CISF as a constable on 25.11.1983. Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment on 15.01.1998 for having committed an offence under section 302 IPC and thereafter dismissed from service.

4. Petitioner submitted a representation for grant of compassionate allowance which was rejected and thereafter his wife also gave a representation which has also been rejected.

5. Rule 41 of the CCS Pension Rules reads as under:

41. Compassionate allowance

(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 compensation pension.

(2) A compassionate allowance sanctioned under the proviso to sub-rule (1) shall not be less than the amount of Rupees three hundred and seventy-five per mensem."

6. Rule 41 stipulates that a government servant who is dismissed or removed from service shall forfeit his pension and gratuity. However, it empowers the competent authority to sanction a compensate allowance not exceeding two-thirds of the pension or gratuity or both in cases deserving special consideration.

7. Government of India vide Office Memorandum No.3 dated 22.04.1940 stipulated that it would be practically impossible keeping in view the wide variations that naturally exist in the circumstances attending each case, to lay down precise principles that could be uniformly applied to individual cases. Each case had to be considered on its merit and conclusion reached on the question whether there were any extenuating features in the case. In considering the question not only the actual misconduct or course of misconduct but also the kind of service rendered is to be taken into account. It stipulates that poverty is not an essential condition precedent to grant of compassionate allowance but special regard is to be paid to the fact that the officer has a wife and children dependent upon him so, that factor alone is not the most exceptional circumstance sufficient to grant of compassionate allowance.

8. The impugned order dated 22.06.2016 refers to a decision of the Supreme Court in Mahinder Dutt Sharma v. Union of India & Others, (2014) 11 SCC 684 and notes that the Supreme Court has enumerated following guidelines for grant of compassionate allowance. For the sake of completion the guidelines are extracted herein as under:

i) 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?

ii) Was the act of the delinquent, an act of dishonesty towards his employer?

iii) Was the act of delinquent, an act of designed for personal gains from the employer?

iv) Was the act of delinquent aimed