wwf 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ~.-.—n_.s..w-.‘.-n—y_un.mu” . ATTIEGARH &T BILA $§UR ”mm m-“uuyx’pm‘. --..m.‘“.u.-.m u. .w—u-mmmuuunuu... nu... _~..”- EMT mTmION No. 3_§4f__g OF 20 o4 Smgi’? gmg?g Framed Kumar Kashyap, Son of late Shri Remdhan Kashyap, aged abodt 27 years, Eaucation : 12th gtd. resident o£ Daihan E3ara, ?ura na aarkanda, Near Hanuman Mandir, Bilaspur ( C.G. ) VERSUS nywm‘: u Union of l dia through the Secretary; .inistry of State- Affairs, New Delhi. Stéte of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary} Home, D.K.S. Bhawan‘} Raipur‘ ( CIG Y: 3. State of Madhya Eradesh, through the aecretary; ,Vallabh Ehavan, Bhopal (M9). 4; The Director Genera1,of 9olice, Eblice Headquarter : Raipur ( C.G. ) 5. The rest; Inspector General of ?olice,‘ §olioe EEQQqQ§E§Fx : Raipur ( C.G; ) The Supdt. of Folice, BilaSpur, Distt ‘ Bilaspur ( C.Gf ) 2;; x .. .uH ALW‘ ‘ 1 3W HIGH COURT OF CHHA’ITISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETYHON N0. 3646 0f2004 PETITIONER : Pramod Kumar Kashyap. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Union of India & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. SB: Hon’hle Shri Satish K. AgnihotrLJ. Shri V.K.Pandey, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri Anand Verma, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyer for the Statefrespondent N0. 2, 4, 5 and 6. . Present: ORDER gORAL) (Passed on 29 day of March 2mm Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 17.02.2003 (Aimexure P /2) whereby imposition of punishment‘of removal from service on the father ofthe petitioner from service has been converted to compulsory retirement we}? 6.7.1985, pursuant to the order dated 17.7.2002 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Adr/ninistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (for short ‘the SAT’) in O.A. No. 393/1989, and the order dated 02.04.2004 (Annexure P/l 1) 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 assignng any reason by the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Raipur. 2. 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 aner 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 ofthe enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority on the basis that the same was perverse and was based on no evidence. Thus, the H 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 W 2 service. Pursuant to that, the Superimendent of Police, Bilaspur, having considered all the aspects of the matter, modified the order of dismissal d‘om service to that ofcompulsory retirement w.ef 6.7. 1985. 3. Shri Pahdey ihrther 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 ofsuch a punishment is disproportionate. 4. 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 ofthe door ofthe 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 ofthe petitioner took law in its own hands. On consideration and perusal of the pleadings and documents, contention of Shn' 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. Ifa 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. d’c Others v. Ashok Kumar Singh & (motherj, 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 li'om duty without permission, has committed gave misconduct, which has rightly resulted into removal hom service. 7. Further, in Commissioner 0fPolr‘ce v. Syed Hussain2, 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 ofmisconduct. 1 (1996) 1 SCC 302 2 (2006) 2 CGLJ 75 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/l 1) that the father of the petitioner died before creétion of the State ofChhattisgarh, thus, the application ofthe petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment cannot be considered, is bad in law, unjust and illegal. 9. Shii Roy, leamed 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 thereaiter, on reconsideration, was retired compulsorily. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled as his father did not die in harness. 10. 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 ofgranting 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 : Ham/amt State Electricity Board and another v. Hakim Singh3, State ofManipur v. Md. .Rajaodin4, and State ofJ &K and others v, SajadAhmedMir’i ). ll. In View of the foregoing and for the reasons stated hereinabove, no relief can be gamed to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 12. No order asto costs. i Tnu‘ / Sd/- Sau'sh K. Agnihotri Judge 3 (1997) 8 SCC 85 4 AIR 2003 sow 4339 5 2006 (5) scc 766 3 A e