The rejection of the application for compassionate pension rendered the reduction of penalty to compulsory retirement redundant, causing injustice to the petitioner.

Abhilasha Kumari, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred, inter alia, with a prayer to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 02.08.2011, passed by the District Superintendent of Police, Surat Rural (respondent No. 4), whereby, the application of the petitioner for the grant of compassionate pension has been rejected, as well as the order dated 02.06.2010, passed by the Appellate Authority, Inspector General of Police, Surat Zone (respondent No. 3), whereby the punishment of dismissal from service has been reduced to that of compulsory retirement, as also the order dated 09.03.2011, passed by the revisional authority, Director General of Police, Gujarat State (respondent No. 2), whereby, the order dated 02.06.2010, passed by the Appellate Authority has been confirmed.

2. The brief factual background of the case is to the effect that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Police Department on 01.05.1989. He was promoted as Unarmed Head Constable on 14.12.2004. During the course of service, he was posted in Surat Rural Zone. It is the case of the petitioner that his father suffered a fall and sustained fractures, in the year 2006. He was, therefore required to be admitted in a hospital. He was operated upon on 23.12.2006, by implanting a plate in his leg. It is further the case of the petitioner that his mother had already passed away, therefore there was none except the petitioner to look after his father. The petitioner's father underwent another operation on 10.08.2007 and a third one on 17.06.2008. He was completely bed-ridden and unable to walk during the aforesaid period of more than two years. The petitioner, being the only son and having no other means, could not afford to engage a nurse or a ward-boy. Hence, he himself attended to his ailing father. Ultimately, the petitioner's father died on 23.01.2010. The petitioner remained absent from duty without permission for various periods between 2006 to 2007 on account of the illness of his father. He was served with a Chargesheet on 28.08.2009 for his unauthorised absence for the periods mentioned therein. The Chargesheet also mentioned various notices issued to the petitioner to report for duty that remained unresponded, as the petitioner did not turn up. A departmental inquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the Inquiry Officer, vide his Report dated 28.12.2009, found that the charges against the petitioner were proved. On the basis of the Inquiry Report, a Show Cause Notice came to be issued to the petitioner by respondent No. 4, to show cause why the petitioner should not be removed from the post of Unarmed Head Constable. The petitioner submitted his reply, stating that he was attending to his ailing father, therefore, he could not attend his duties. The petitioner requested the concerned authorities to take a sympathetic view of the matter and impose a lesser punishment. However, respondent No. 4, vide the impugned order dated 31.03.2010, dismissed the petitioner from service. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to respondent No. 3, requesting the said respondent to impose a lesser punishment as, according to him, the punishment already imposed was disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. Respondent No. 3, taking a lenient view, reduced the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement, by the impugned order dated 02.06.2010. The petitioner found this punishment to be harsh, as well. He preferred a revision application before respondent No. 2, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 09.03.2011. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Mr. Dipen A. Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the only plea that the petitioner made before the authorities is that a lesser punishment be imposed upon him, as he has a family of four children to maintain and has no