PRAMOD KUMAR KASHYAP Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(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 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.

(3.) 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.