AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The challenge in the instant writ petition is to the order dated 11.5.2012 (Annexure P-8), whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 2.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II, has been rejected. Facts in brief that would require notice are that the petitioner, who was working as a Process Server was placed under suspension on 31.8.1995 and was charge sheeted vide memo dated 7.9.1995, wherein the following articles of charge had been drawn up against him.
That as per Rule 4, Chapter 6-B High Court Rules and orders, Volume IV, Process Server may be required to perform any other public duties that may be assigned to them.
That in the light of the above-referred Rule, the Senior Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur vide his order dated 30.8.1995 conveyed under endorsement No. 1903, Dated 30.8.1995, directed you to attend the office work of the office of the Distt. & Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur on 31.8.1995. You were further informed that in case you failed to discharge your duties, disciplinary action will be taken against you.
That on 31.8.1995, you attended the office but failed to do the work entrusted to you viz. dusting of library books and maintenance of the lawns in the premises of the Sessions Court. You have not only violated the High Court Rules and Orders but also flouted the orders of the superiors and thus, you are liable to disciplinary action.
Upon considering the reply filed by the petitioner to the charge sheet as unsatisfactory, the then Senior Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur was appointed as Inquiry Officer vide order dated 4.10.1995. The inquiry report was submitted on 15.1.1995 holding the petitioner to be guilty of the articles of charge framed against him. The copy of the inquiry report was furnished to the petitioner and his objections filed thereto were also considered. Thereafter, vide order dated 3.2.1996 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur the petitioner was ordered to be removed from service. It is not a matter of dispute that such order of removal from service was challenged by the petitioner in terms of filing CWP No. 5040 of 1997 but the same was dismissed vide order dated 14.5.1997. Such order of removal acquired finality as even the S.L.P preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Hon''ble Apex Court. It is thereafter that the petitioner raised a claim for the grant of compassionate allowance and which has finally culminated in the passing of the impugned order dated 11.5.2012.
Mr. K.S. Dadwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and is erroneous as the past service of the petitioner prior to passing the order of removal from service has not been taken into account while rejecting his claim. Counsel would urge that there has been a non-application of mind at the hands of the competent authority while rejecting his claim for compassionate allowance and it is only in terms of noticing his present financial condition and earning capacity that his claim has been rejected. It has been argued that the conduct of the petitioner was without blemish during his service and such factor should have been necessarily taken into account while adjudicating his claim. In a nutshell it has been argued that while passing the impugned order there has been no consideration at all in accordance with law. Reliance was also placed upon a Division Bench judgment of the Hon''ble Delhi High Court rendered in case of Ex. L/Nk Mahabir Prasad Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others,
The validity of the impugned order dated 11.5.2012 (Annexure P-8) would require examination in the light of the relevant statutory provision i.e. Rule 2.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II which reads in the following terms:-
2.5 No pension may be granted to a govt. employee dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency, but to government employee so dismissed or removed, compassionate allowance may be granted when they are deserving of special consideration. Provided that the allowances granted to any government employee shall not exceed two-third of the pension, which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on medical certificate.
A bare reading of the afore-extracted provision would make it apparent that the grant of compassionate allowance would have to be construed not as a matter of right but as a concession. While rejecting the claim of compassionate allowance detailed reasoning has been furnished in the impugned order. It has been concluded by the competent authority that the petitioner is not surviving in a stage of abject poverty or penury. His earning capacity has been specifically noticed. That apart, in the impugned order itself even the fact as regards the petitioner having been dismissed from service on account of his misconduct has also been taken cognizance of. Undisputedly, the petitioner had been removed from service having been found guilty of insubordination and dereliction of duty. The observations of the District & Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur in the order dated 3.2.1996 while removing the petitioner from service to the following effect would be relevant:-
The delinquent official, at no stage showed any remorse and remained defiant as according to him, he could not have been assigned the work of maintenance of lawns of cutting of grass therefrom. The act of the delinquent official is highly prejudicial to the office discipline and in order to curb such a tendency of indiscipline on the part of such other employee, it is essential that the delinquent official be adequately punished.
Hence, Shri Amrik Singh, Process Server, is ordered to be removed from service with immediate effect.
Against such backdrop the competent authority has exercised its discretion in not finding the petitioner deserving of the concession of compassionate allowance as envisaged under Rule 2.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II.
It is by now well settled that the scope and extent of power of judicial review at the hands of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be in the nature of an Appellate Court over administrative decisions. Still further, the competent authority having exercised jurisdiction and having passed an order would be open to interference in the process of judicial review only, if, it is shown that the exercise of discretion itself is perverse or illegal. The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and Another Vs. Johri Mal, has even held that a mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The following observations of the Hon''ble Apex Court would be relevant:-
The Scope and extent of power of the judicial review of the High Court contained in Article 226 of the Constitution of India would vary from case to case, the nature of the order, the relevant statute as also the other relevant factors including the nature of power exercised by the public authorities, namely, whether the power is statutory, quasi judicial or administrative. The power of judicial review is not intended to assume a supervisory role or done the robes of omnipresent. The power is not intended either to review governance under the rule of law nor do the courts step into the areas exclusively reserved by the suprema lex to the other organs of the State. Decisions and actions which do not have adjudicative disposition may not strictly fall for consideration before a judicial review court. The limited scope of judicial review succinctly put are :
(i) Courts, while exercising the power of judicial review, do not sit in appeal over the decisions of administrative bodies;
(ii) A petition for a judicial review would lie only on certain well-defined grounds.
(iii) An order passed by an administrative authority exercising discretion vested in it, cannot be interfered in judicial review unless it is shown that exercise of discretion itself is perverse or illegal.
(iv) A mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the power of judicial review; the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on a Court is limited to seeing that Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority and that its decisions do not occasion miscarriage of justice.
(v) The Courts cannot be called upon to undertake the Government duties and functions. The Court shall not ordinarily interfere with a policy decision of the State. Social and economic belief of a Judge should not be invoked as a substitute for the judgment of the legislative bodies. (See Ira Munn Vs. State of Ellinois, 1876 (94) US (Supreme Reports) 113).
The reliance placed by learned counsel upon the Division Bench judgment of the Hon''ble Delhi High Court in Mahabir Parsad''s case (supra) is also misplaced. Even though, in such judicial precedent the petitioner therein had been held entitled to the grant of compassionate allowance in the light of Rule 41 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, which is parameteria to Rule 2.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II, yet, such decision was rendered in the light of Govt. of India Instructions issued vide office memo dated 22.4.1940 laying down the guiding principles for the grant of compassionate allowance. That apart, it had been specifically noticed in Mahabir Parsad''s case (supra) that there had been no denial to the submissions relating to the petitioner''s penury and financial hardship at the hands of the respondents therein. As such the facts and circumstances of such judicial precedent are clearly distinguishable.
For the reasons recorded above, I find no basis that would warrant interference with the impugned order dated 11.5.2012 (Annexure P-8) declining the claim of compassionate allowance to the petitioner. No merit, petition dismissed.