# Smt. Neetu Sharma v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 659
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-08
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 16473 of 2023
- **Bench:** Manjive Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-neetu-sharma-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51730
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment - U.P. Government Order
Dated 04.09.2000 - Petitioner challenged the
rejection of her compassionate appointment
application following the death of her mother-inlaw, an Assistant Teacher, on 28.12.2017 -
Held, the District Basic Education Officer's order
dated 08.09.2023 rejecting the petitioner's
application was valid, as her husband's prior
application for compassionate appointment on a
clerical post was registered but not fulfilled due
to lack of vacancies within the five-year period
prescribed under Clause 5 of the Government
Order dated 04.09.2000 - His refusal to opt for
a Class-IV post and the expiration of the fiveyear period led to the automatic rejection of his
claim, precluding a second application by the
petitioner. (Paras 5, 15, 16, 17, 18)

Service Law - Limitation on Successive
Applications
for
Compassionate
Appointment - The petitioner's husband
applied for compassionate appointment on a
clerical post, which was not granted due to
unavailability of vacancies, and his claim lapsed
after five years as per the Government Order
dated 04.09.2000 - Held, there is no provision
under the Government Order for a second
application by another family member after the
initial claim is extinguished - The petitioner's
application, filed after her husband's death on
11.04.2023, was not maintainable, as successive
applications for compassionate appointment are
not permissible. (Paras 16, 17, 18)

Service Law - Non-Compliance with Court
Orders and Financial Stress - The petitioner
argued that her husband's application was not
decided despite a court order dated 23.11.2022,
and her family faced financial stress - Held, the
respondents' failure to comply with the court
order did not alter the fact that the husband's
claim lapsed after five years due to nonavailability of clerical posts and his refusal to opt
for
a
Class-IV
post
-
Compassionate
appointment is not a matter of right, and the
petitioner's claim could not be treated as a
continuation of her husband's application - The
rejection order dated 08.09.2023 was upheld as
legally sound. (Paras 6, 7, 8, 16, 18)

Writ Petition Dismissed .

Order Dated 08.09.2023 Upheld.

## Text

3 All. Smt. Neetu Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
659
accordingly, order dated 26.12.2022 is not
sustainable in the eyes of law.

17. In view of the aforesaid reasons,
this writ petition is allowed. Order dated
26.12.2022 passed by the District Basic
Education Officer, Gorakhpur is quashed.
Matter is remitted to Respondent No. 4 to
consider the petitioner's matter afresh in
the light of this order and to pass fresh
order within a period of two months from
the date of presentation of certified copy of
this order.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 659
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.02.2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ A No. 16473 of 2023

Smt. Neetu Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Kamal Kumar Kesherwani

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Rama Nand Pandey

Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment - U.P. Government Order
Dated 04.09.2000 - Petitioner challenged the
rejection of her compassionate appointment
application following the death of her mother-inlaw, an Assistant Teacher, on 28.12.2017 -
Held, the District Basic Education Officer's order
dated 08.09.2023 rejecting the petitioner's
application was valid, as her husband's prior
application for compassionate appointment on a
clerical post was registered but not fulfilled due
to lack of vacancies within the five-year period
prescribed under Clause 5 of the Government
Order dated 04.09.2000 - His refusal to opt for
a Class-IV post and the expiration of the fiveyear period led to the automatic rejection of his
claim, precluding a second application by the
petitioner. (Paras 5, 15, 16, 17, 18)

Service Law - Limitation on Successive
Applications
for
Compassionate
Appointment - The petitioner's husband
applied for compassionate appointment on a
clerical post, which was not granted due to
unavailability of vacancies, and his claim lapsed
after five years as per the Government Order
dated 04.09.2000 - Held, there is no provision
under the Government Order for a second
application by another family member after the
initial claim is extinguished - The petitioner's
application, filed after her husband's death on
11.04.2023, was not maintainable, as successive
applications for compassionate appointment are
not permissible. (Paras 16, 17, 18)

Service Law - Non-Compliance with Court
Orders and Financial Stress - The petitioner
argued that her husband's application was not
decided despite a court order dated 23.11.2022,
and her family faced financial stress - Held, the
respondents' failure to comply with the court
order did not alter the fact that the husband's
claim lapsed after five years due to nonavailability of clerical posts and his refusal to opt
for
a
Class-IV
post
-
Compassionate
appointment is not a matter of right, and the
petitioner's claim could not be treated as a
continuation of her husband's application - The
rejection order dated 08.09.2023 was upheld as
legally sound. (Paras 6, 7, 8, 16, 18)

Writ Petition Dismissed .

Order Dated 08.09.2023 Upheld.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manjive Shukla, J.)

1.

Heard
Mr.
Kamal
Kumar
Kesherwani, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the Respondents No. 1 to 3
and Mr. Rama Nand Pandey, learned
counsel appearing for the Respondents No.
4 & 5.

2. Petitioner through this writ
petition has assailed the order dated
08.09.2023 passed by the District Basic
660 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Education Officer, Jhansi whereby her
claim for compassionate appointment has
been rejected.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that
mother-in-law of the petitioner while
working on the post of Assistant Teacher in
a Primary School at Jhansi died in harness
on 28.12.2017. Petitioner's husband Mr.
Prashant Sharma preferred an application
on 12.03.2018 for his compassionate
appointment on the post of Clerk in place
of his mother. Application filed by Mr.
Prashant
Sharma
for
compassionate
appointment on the post of Clerk remained
pending with the respondents and during
pendency of the application respondents
required him to opt for appointment on a
Class-IV post as vacant Class-III post was
not available but he did not opt for
appointment on Class-IV post.

4.

Since
the
application
for
compassionate appointment on the post of
Clerk submitted by the petitioner's husband
remained pending with the respondents, he
filed Writ-A No. 19207 of 2022 (Prashant
Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors) which was
finally disposed of by this Court vide order
dated 23.11.2022 whereby direction was
issued to the Secretary, U.P. Basic
Education Board, Prayagraj to decide his
application
dated
12.03.2018.
The
Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board,
Prayagraj did not take any decision
pursuant to order dated 23.11.2022 passed
by this Court in Writ-A No. 19207 of 2022
and in the meantime petitioner's husband
Mr. Prashant Sharma died on 11.04.2023.
After the death of her husband, petitioner
filed an application on 23.05.2023 for her
compassionate appointment in lieu of the
death of her mother-in-law. Since the
application filed by the petitioner was not
decided, she filed Writ-A No. 10348 of
2023 which was disposed of by this Court
vide order dated 14.07.2023 whereby
direction was issued to the District Basic
Education Officer, Jhansi to consider and
decide
petitioner's
application
for
compassionate appointment within a period
of one month.

5. The District Basic Education
Officer, in compliance of the order dated
14.07.2023 passed by this Court in Writ-A
No. 10348 of 2023 has passed order on
08.09.2023, whereby application of the
petitioner
for
her
compassionate
appointment has been rejected on the
ground that petitioner's husband on the
death of his mother filed application for his
compassionate appointment on the post of
Clerk and in view of the provisions made in
Government order dated 04.09.2000, the
said application was entered in the list of
candidates seeking appointment on clerical
post and since during five years due to nonavailability of vacancy in the clerical cadre
he could not be given appointment on
clerical post, his application has been delisted. In the order dated 08.09.2023 it has
further been stated that during period of
five years from the date of application of
the petitioner's husband he was offered to
opt for his compassionate appointment on a
Class-IV post but he did not submit his
option and continuously insisted for his
appointment on a clerical post, therefore in
view of the provisions made in the
Government order dated 04.09.2000, his
claim automatically came to an end after
expiry of the period of five years from the
date of his application and further since one
application filed by petitioner's husband
stood rejected and there is no provision for
second
application
for
compassionate
appointment, therefore petitioner pursuant
to her application cannot be provided
compassionate
appointment
and
accordingly her application stands rejected.
3 All. Smt. Neetu Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
661

6. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has submitted that mother of the
petitioner's husband died on 28.12.2017
and thereafter he filed application for
compassionate appointment on 12.03.2018
but the said application was never decided
by the respondents in spite of the
categorical order passed by this Court on
23.11.2022 in Writ-A No. 19207 of 2022
and during the pendency of the said
application
petitioner's
husband
died
therefore,
petitioner's
application
for
compassionate appointment should have
been treated to be in continuity with the
application filed by her husband and
accordingly could not have been rejected. It
has further been submitted that the
provisions of the Government order dated
04.09.2000 only provide that application
for compassionate appointment on the
clerical post shall be entered in a list and
appointment on the clerical posts will be
provided on the criteria of first come first
get against the available vacancies and after
five years the application shall be de-listed
but in no way the provisions of the
Government
order
dated
04.09.2000
provide that the claim for compassionate
appointment
of
a
candidate
shall
automatically stand rejected on completion
of period of five years, therefore the stand
taken by the District Basic Education
Officer,
Jhansi
in
his
order
dated
08.09.2023 is absolutely misconceived.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has vehemently argued that the
respondents deliberately did not comply the
order dated 23.11.2022 passed by this
Court in Writ-A No. 19207 of 2022 and in
the meantime petitioner's husband died,
therefore it is apparent that the application
filed by the petitioner's husband for his
compassionate appointment has not been
decided till date as such the application of
the petitioner for
her
compassionate
appointment should have been treated to be
in continuity with the application of her
husband and could not have been rejected
by the District Basic Education Officer,
Jhansi but in patent disregard to the order
passed
by
this
Court,
petitioner's
application for compassionate appointment
has been rejected vide order dated
08.09.2023 on absolutely misconceived
ground that the application filed by the
petitioner's husband automatically stood
rejected on completion of period of five
years from the date of its filing.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has also argued that petitioner's
family is still under acute financial stress as
after the death of her mother-in-law, her
father-in-law and husband both have died
and there is no one in the family who can
provide financial support, therefore it is
apparent that financial stress is continuing
as on date accordingly, the application filed
by the petitioner for her compassionate
appointment should have been considered
sympathetically but the District Basic
Education
Officer,
Jhansi
without
considering
the
entire
facts
and
circumstances of the case has straight away
rejected
her
case
vide
order
date
08.09.2023.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has thus concluded his arguments
by
submitting
that
the
order
dated
08.09.2023 passed by the District Basic
Education Officer, Jhansi cannot sustain in
the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed
by this Court.

10. Per contra, Mr. Rama Nand
Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the
Respondents No. 4 & 5 has argued that
compassionate
appointment
to
the
662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dependent of a deceased teacher is
provided in terms of the provisions made in
the Government order dated 04.09.2000,
wherein under Clause 5 it has been
provided that where a candidate seeks
compassionate appointment on a clerical
post, his application shall be registered in
the
list
of
candidates
seeking
compassionate appointment on clerical post
and appointment shall be given on the
criteria of first come first get against the
available vacancies and if during the period
of five years, candidate is not given
appointment due to non-availability of
vacancy in the clerical cadre, his name
shall be deleted from the said list with a
further rider that if during the said five
years if any candidate submits application
for compassionate appointment on a ClassIV post then his application shall be
considered for appointment on a Class-IV
post. The mother-in-law of the petitioner
died
on
28.12.2017
and
petitioner's
husband applied for his compassionate
appointment on a clerical post which was
registered in the list of the candidates but
due to non-availability of vacancy in the
clerical cadre he could not be given
compassionate appointment on the clerical
post and the time period of five years
completed, therefore his application stood
automatically rejected. During the said
period of five years, petitioner's husband
was offered to opt for compassionate
appointment on a Class-IV post but he did
not
opt
and
never
applied
for
compassionate appointment on a Class-IV
post and therefore, his claim automatically
stood rejected on completion of the period
of five years. Once the application for
compassionate appointment filed by the
petitioner's husband automatically stood
rejected on completion of the period of five
years, there is no provision for second
application for compassionate appointment
by any other family member as such
petitioner's application for compassionate
appointment has been rejected vide order
dated 08.09.2023.

11. Mr. Rama Nand Pandey, learned
counsel appearing for the Respondents No.
4 & 5 has thus concluded his arguments by
submitting that the order dated 08.09.2023
passed by the District Basic Education
Officer, Jhansi does not suffer from any
infirmity and writ petition filed by the
petitioner is liable to be dismissed by this
Court.

12. I have considered the rival
submissions advanced by the learned
counsels appearing for the parties and I find
that mother-in-law of the petitioner died on
28.12.2017
and
thereafter
petitioner's
husband
filed
application
for
his
compassionate appointment on a clerical
post. Since the vacant clerical post was not
available, his application was registered in
the
list
of
candidates
seeking
compassionate appointment on clerical
post. Petitioner's husband was also offered
to opt for available vacant Class-IV post
vide letter dated 19.07.2018 but he did not
opt for appointment on Class-IV post and
continued to maintain his claim for
compassionate appointment on a clerical
post.

13. For arriving at conclusion, it is
necessary to have a brief look of the
provisions made in the Clause (5) of the
Government order dated 04.09.2000, which
is extracted as under :-

"1⁄451⁄2 ,sls e`rd vkfJr tks] lEcfU/kr
deZpkjh dh e`R;q ds fnukad dks e`rd vkfJr ds :i
esa lsok;kstu ds fy;s U;wure 'kSf{kd vgZrk
b.VjehfM,V vFkok mlls vf/kd j[krs gksa vkSj csfld
f'k{kk ifj"kn ds v/khu v/khuLFk Lrjksa ij fyfid ds
3 All. Smt. Neetu Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
663
LkEoxZ ds lcls uhps ds in ij lsok;kstu ds fy;s
vU;Fkk vgZ gksa] dks lEcfU/kr tuin ds fyfid ds
fyfid ds fjDr in ds lkis{; laoxZ esa lcls uhps ds
in ij lsok;kstu iznku fd;k tk;sxkA

tuin esa fjDr fyfid ds in ij e`rd
vkfJr ds :i esa lsok;kstu ds fy, izkIr leLr
vkosnu i=ksa ds izFke vkxr izFke iznRr ds vk/kkj ij
iathd`r fd;k tk;sxk rFkk foHkkx ds fjDr gksus okys
inksa ds lkis{; izFke vkxr izFke iznRr ds fu;e dk
ikyu lqfuf'pr djrs gq, lsok;kstu iznku fd;k
tk;sxkA fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh rnuqlkj e`rd vkfJr
vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph dks izR;sd ekg ds izkjEHk esa vius
dk;kZy; ds lwpuk iVy ij iznf'kZr djsaxs vkSj izR;sd
ekg gksus okyh fjfDr ds lkis{; lsok;ksftr e`rd
vkfJr dk uke iznf'kZr djrs gq, mDr lwph dk
rnuqlkj la'kksf/kr dj vxys ekg ds izkjEHk esa
v|kof/kd la'kksf/kr lwph dk;kZy; esa lwpuk iVy ij
iznf'kZr djrs jgasxsA r`rh; Js.kh ds fjDr in ds
lkis{; e`rd vkfJr lsok;kstu ds fy, izR;sd vH;FkhZ
ds uke fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh ds dk;kZy; esa iathd`r gksus
dh frfFk ls ikap o"kZ dh vof/k iwjh gksus ds ekg ds
vafre dk;Z fnol rd ;fn izFke vkxr izFke iznRr
ds fl)kUr ds vuqlkj lsok;kstu gsrq Js.kh rhu dh
fjfDr miyC/k ugha gksrh rks lEcfU/kr vH;FkhZ dk uke
iathd`r vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph ls fudky fn;k tk;sxk
fdUrq bl vof/k ls iwoZ ;fn Js.kh pkj ds fjDr
in@vf/kla[; in ds lkis{; lsok;kstu gsrq viuk
la'kksf/kr vkosnu i= fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh ds dk;kZy; esa
iathd`r djk ysa rks ml ij fopkj fd;k tk;sxkA

e`rd
vkfJr
ifjokj
dh
dfBu
ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, ;fn dksbZ vH;FkhZ]
fyfid laoxZ ds in dh fjfDr ds lkis{; lsok;kstu
esa] lEHkfor foyEc dks] n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, ;fn rRdky
lsok;kstu dh vko';drk vuqHko djrk gks rks fu;qfDr
izkf/kdkjh ds fy, ,sls vH;fFkZ;ksa ds lEcU/k esa prqFkZ
Js.kh esa fjDr vf/kla[; inkas ds lkis{; e`rd vkfJr
ds iqujhf{kr vkosnu i= izLrqr djus ij lsok;kstu
djus dk vf/kdkj gksxkA ;gk¡ ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS
fd ,d ckj e`rd vkfJr ds :i esa iznRr lsok;kstu
dh lqfo/kk ij iquZfopkj dk dksbZ volj ugha
jgsxkA""""

14. From perusal of Clause (5) of the
Government order dated 04.09.2000 it
becomes crystal clear that if a candidate is
claiming for compassionate appointment on
a clerical post and the vacancy is not
available then his application shall be
registered in the list of candidates seeking
compassionate appointment on clerical post
and from that list appointments shall be
offered against available vacant clerical
posts on the criteria of first come first get
and further if during the period of five
years from the date of such registration
candidate could not get appointment on a
clerical post then his application shall be
removed from the said list. In Clause (5) of
the Government order dated 04.09.2000 it
has further been provided that during the
period of five years it shall be open for the
candidate to opt for his appointment on a
Class-IV post and if the said option is
submitted,
then
his
claim
shall
be
considered for appointment against a ClassIV post.

15. This court finds that the
application for compassionate appointment
submitted by the petitioner's husband was
received in the office of the District Basic
Education Officer, Jhansi on 20.03.2018
and it was registered in the list of
candidates
seeking
compassionate
appointment
on
clerical
post
but
petitioner's husband could not be offered
compassionate appointment on a clerical
post for want of vacancy and the period of
five years completed, therefore as per
provisions made in Government Order
dated 04.09.2000, his name was removed
from the list. This court further finds that
during the period of five years petitioner's
husband
was
offered
to
opt
for
compassionate appointment on a Class-IV
post but he did not submit any such option
and he continued to assert his claim for
appointment on a clerical post.

16. Petitioner's husband without
disclosing provisions made in Clause (5) of
the Government order dated 04.09.2000
filed Writ-A No. 19207 of 2022 and this
664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court vide order dated 23.11.2022 directed
the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board,
Prayagraj to consider and decide his
application dated 12.03.2018 and the said
order was not complied with, but the fact
remains that the petitioner's husband was
claiming compassionate appointment on a
clerical post and due to non-availability of
vacancy
he
could
not
be
given
compassionate
appointment
and
on
completion of the period of five years his
name was removed from the list of
candidates
seeking
compassionate
appointment on clerical post. The husband
of the petitioner died on 11.04.2023 and
thereafter petitioner filed application for
her
compassionate
appointment
on
23.05.2023 and the said application has
been rejected by the District Basic
Education Officer, Jhansi vide order dated
08.09.2023 on the ground that petitioner's
husband claimed his appointment on a
clerical post and his application was
registered in the list of candidates seeking
compassionate appointment on clerical post
and since during five years period he could
not given appointment due to nonavailability of vacancy of clerical post, his
application automatically stood rejected
and his name was removed from the list of
candidates
seeking
compassionate
appointment on clerical post. In the order
dated
08.09.2023
the
District
Basic
Education Officer, Jhansi has also pointed
out that petitioner's husband was offered to
opt for compassionate appointment on a
Class-IV post but he did not submit such
option
and
continued
to
claim
for
compassionate appointment on clerical post
which stood rejected on completion of
period of five years.

17.

Provisions
made
in
the
Government order dated 04.09.2000 are
unambiguous and there is provision that if a
candidate
wants
compassionate
appointment on a Class-IV post, then his
case can be considered for the said
appointment but if he is insisting for
appointment on a clerical post and vacancy
is not available then his application shall be
registered in the list of candidates seeking
compassionate appointment on clerical post
and the said claim will continue to exist for
a period of five years and thereafter his
name shall be removed from the list
meaning thereby that his application for
compassionate appointment on Class-III
post shall automatically stand rejected. It is
also worth consideration of this Court that
the compassionate appointment cannot be
claimed as a matter of right and once
petitioner's husband was offered to opt for
compassionate appointment on a Class-IV
post and he continued to insist for his claim
for appointment on a clerical post which
came to end on expiry of the period of five
years, the second application filed by the
petitioner
for
her
compassionate
appointment after the death of her husband
is not maintainable as there is no provision
under
the
Government
order
dated
04.09.2000 for successive applications for
compassionate appointment by more than
one member of the family of the deceased
teacher.

18. By now it is well setted
proposition of law propounded through
catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme
Court that in the matters of compassionate
appointment, one cannot insist for his
appointment on a particular post and
therefore once petitioner's husband was
offered appointment on a Class-IV post and
he did not opt for that appointment, his
claim
for
compassionate
appointment
ended and further in terms of Government
order dated 04.09.2000 his claim for
compassionate appointment on a clerical
3 All. Mohammad Sabir Vs. Union of India & Ors.
665
post ended on completion of period of five
years from the date of registration of his
application,
therefore
the
second
application filed by the petitioner for her
compassionate appointment was not at all
maintainable, as such the District Basic
Education Officer, Jhansi while rejecting
the petitioner's application vide order dated
08.09.2023
has
not
committed
any
illegality.

19. In view of the aforesaid reasons,
this writ petition lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 665
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.02.2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH , J.

Writ A No. 17190 of 2021

Mohammad Sabir ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vinod Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai, Sri Gopal Verma

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings -
Violation of Natural Justice - Petitioner, a
Khalasi/Helper in Railways, challenged his
removal from service for unauthorized absence
(17.12.2007 to 02.09.2008), alleging noncompliance with Rule 9 of the Railway Servants
(Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1968 - Held,
petitioner admitted the charge of unauthorized
absence in his St.ment recorded on 15.06.2009,
negating the need for further inquiry, witness
examination, or cross-examination under Rule 9
- As admitted facts need not be proved, no
violation of natural justice occurred - Tribunal's
dismissal of the petitioner's original application
upheld. (Paras 8, 17, 21, 24)

Service Law - Admission of Charges -
Effect on Inquiry Procedure
- Petitioner
contended that the inquiry officer failed to
follow Rules 9(14), 9(17), 9(22), and 9(25),
including non-examination of witnesses and
non-supply of the inquiry report - Held, the
petitioner's
admission
of
the
charge
of
unauthorized absence in his St.ment dispensed
with the need for further procedural steps, as
per Clause 5 of the charge-sheet format -
Impugned order confirmed supply of the inquiry
report on 08.07.2009, which petitioner did not
specifically deny - No procedural irregularity
found in the inquiry process. (Paras 11, 12, 19,
21, 24)
Service
Law
-
Proportionality
of
Punishment - Habitual Absenteeism -
Petitioner argued that removal from service was
disproportionate to the charge of unauthorized
absence
-
Held,
petitioner's
habitual
absenteeism (319 days in 2005, 44 days in
2006, 67 days in 2007, and 261 days in 200708, totaling over 600 days) justified the
punishment
of
removal
-
Tribunal
and
disciplinary authority's findings, supported by
petitioner's admission and lack of explanation,
warranted no interference - Judgments cited by
petitioner
(U.O.I.
Vs
Dinanath
Shantaram
Karekar, St. of U.P. Vs Saroj Kumar Sinha,
Krushnakant B. Parmar) held inapplicable due to
petitioner's admission of charges. (Paras 22, 24,
25)

Writ Petition Dismissed .

No
Illegality
in
Tribunal's
Order
Dated
05.04.2021.

List of Cases Cited:
1. Hardwari Lal Vs St. of U.P. & ors., decided on
27.10.1999

2. U.O.I. Vs Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC
588

3. Ram Chander Vs U.O.I., (1986) 3 SCC 103

4. U.O.I. & ors. Vs Dinanath Shantaram Karekar
& ors., (1998) 7 SCC 569