RAM KALA WIDOW Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The widow of dismissed Army personnel Ex L/NK Sukh Ram Yadav of 31 BN, CRPF has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to sanction family pension to her with effect from 17.8.2001 and also to pay the arrears of pension and gratuity which was due to her deceased husband.

(2.) The deceased husband of the petitioner was enlisted in CRPF on 5.6.1971. In due course, he was promoted to the rank of L/NK. He was placed under suspension on 28.6.1993 and was charge-sheeted on 23.7.1993 under Section 11(1) CRPF Act, 1949 and after inquiry he was dismissed from Army service on 25.1.1994. After his dismissal, he did not challenge the impugned order of his dismissal till he died on 17.8.2001. After his death his widow, petitioner herein, made a representation to the CRPF authorities in January, 2002 to consider her case for release of family pension. On 3.4.2002, the petitioner was informed by Commandant 31 BN CRPF, New Delhi about the rejection of her claim for family pension. She was also informed to the same effect by DIG, CRPF on 18.4.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition on 10.8.2005, that is, after more than 11 years of the dismissal of her husband from service and after about four years of his death.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the impugned dismissal order of petitioner's deceased husband is violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. He has further contended that as per the inquiry report itself, there was no evidence of molestation of the girl of L/NK Khehoto Sema but the charge proved against him was only for misbehaviour with the said girl. The learned counsel has further relied upon the provisions contained in Rule 41 of CCS Pension Rules and urged that the competent authority should have, at least, awarded compassionate allowance to the deceased husband of the petitioner though he was dismissed from service as his case deserved special consideration in terms of the aforesaid Rule. The learned counsel has also argued that the punishment awarded to the deceased husband of the petitioner was disproportionate to the charges of alleged misconduct proved against him in the inquiry.