MAHINDER DUTT SHARMA versus U.0.1. & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 5 S.C.R. 95 · Decided: 11-04-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 5 S.C.R. 95 
MAHINDER DUTT SHARMA 
v. 
U.0.1. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2111 of 2009) 
APRIL 11, 2014 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] 
Central Civil Services (Pension) rules, 1972: 
A 
B 
r.41 - Compassionate allowance, grant of - Determining c 
factors - Discussed. 
r.41 - Compassionate allowance - Dismissal from service 
due to unauthorized and wilful absence from service for a 
period of 320 days - Claim for compassionate allowance after 
5-112 years - Held: If infliction of punishment of dismissal is 
D 
on account of an act of moral turpitude or dishonesty or an 
act designed for personal gains from the employer or an act 
harming a third party interest, it would ordinarily disentitle the 
employee from compassionate allowance - In the instant 
case,,. the delinquency proved against the appellant did not 
E 
fall in any of the above categories - Moreover, appellant had 
rendered about 24 years of service, prior to his dismissal and 
was granted 34 good entries - Although the charge proved 
· against the appellant pertained to his unauthorized and wilful 
absence from service, there was nothing to show that his 
F 
absence from service was aimed at seeking better job 
opportunity elsewhere'_ No such inference was even otherwise 
possible, in view of length of service rendered by him -
Further, during period under consideration , his brother died, 
and thereafter, his father and brother's wife also passed away 
G 
- His own wife suffered from cancer - All these tribulations Jed 
to his own ill-health - Also, appellant was involved in a criminal 
case, from which he was subsequently acquitted - These 
considerations ought to have been evaluated by the 
95 
H 
96 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 5 S.C.R. 
A competent authority, to determine whether the claf;n made ul 
Rule 41 deserved special consideration - All the authorities 
merely examined the legitimacy of the order of dismissal and 
of delay in filing the appeal against the punishment order -
The manner of consideration for claim for compassionate 
s allowance, had nothing to do with these aspects - Accordingly, 
competent authority is directed to reconsider the claim of the 
appellant, for the grant of compassionate allowance - Service 
law .. Compassionate allowance. 
c 
Service law: Act of moral turpitude - Meaning of. 
Departmental action was taken against the appellant 
on account of his continuous absence from duty. The 
appellant did not resume duty and his unauthorized and 
willful absence extended to a period of 320 days. The 
D enquiry officer found the charges substantiated against 
the appellant. The appellant was given an opportunity of 
personal hearing but he did not avail. The punishing 
authority dismissed the appellant from service and the 
period of absence was treated as leave without pay. The 
E appellant filed appeal after five and half years which was 
dismissed as time barred. The Tribunal" sustained the 
dismissal order. The appellant filed a writ petition but 
subsequently 
withdrew 
with 
liberty 
to 
seek 
compassionate allowance. The appellant moved a 
F representation to the Joint Commissioner of Police 
seeking compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the 
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. In his· 
representation dated 22.3.2005 the ·appellant asserted, 
that he had about 24 years of unblemished service 
G during which he was granted 34 good entries, including 
2 commendation rolls, 4 commendation certificates and 
28 commendation cards. His prayer was, however, 
rejected. He unsuccessfully challenged the same before 
the Tribunal and the High Court. The instant appeal was 
filed challenging the order of the High Court. 
H 
MAHINDER DUTT SHARMA v. U.0.1. & ORS. 
97 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1. The adjudication by the Courts below with 
reference to Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, 1972, was 
misdirected. Rule itself contemplated _payment of 
compassionate allowance to an employee who has been 
8 
dismissed or removed from service. Under the 
punishment rules, these punishments are of the severest 
magnitude. These punishments can be inflicted, only for 
an act of extreme wrongdoing. It is on account of such 
wrongdoing, that the employee concerned, has already 
C 
been subjected to the severest form of punishment. 
Sometimes even for being incorrigible. Despite that, the 
rule contemplated sanction of a compassionate 
allowance of, upto two-thirds of the pension or gratuity 
(or both), w

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.