- (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 3.11.2000, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. The appellant-petitioner who joined as Junior Engineer in PWD (B&R), Punjab on 11.8.1956 on re-organization of state of Punjab and Haryana in 1966 was allocated State of Punjab and was ultimately sent on deputation to the Punjab Housing Development Board in April, 1975. As per the case of the petitioner, he proceeded on leave on 21.6.1977, on the basis of an application as his son was not well. He, however, rejoined his parent department i.e. PWD (B&R) on 26.3.1986 and was charge-sheeted on 9.12.1986 for willful absence from duty from 21.6.1977 to 26.8.1986. An enquiry was also conducted against him and on the basis of the findings of the enquiry Officer, the order Annexure P-2 dated 12.2.1990 imposing a punishment of termination from Government service with immediate effect was passed. This order was impugned by the appellant-writ petitioner by arguing that as his services had been terminated and he had not been dismissed from service, he was entitled to all retiral benefits as provided in Rule 2.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. 2 Section 3. His writ petition having been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide his judgment dated 3.11.2000, the present appeal has been filed.
(2.) We have heard Mr. J.S. Chandail, the learned AAG, Punjab and have gone through the record of the case. The fact that the appellant has been absent without leave for almost 9 years from 21.6.1977 to 26.8.1986 has not been denied. The appellant is, however, seeking the benefit of Rule 2.5 ibidem to contend that as his services had been terminated and he had not been 'dismissed' from service, he was entitled to pension. We reproduce Rule 2.5 hereinbelow :- "2.5 No pension may be granted to a Government employee dismissed or removed for mis-conduct, insolvency or inefficiency; but to Government employee so dismissed or removed, compassionate allowances may be granted when they are deserving of special consideration; provided that the allowance 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. Note : This rule vests Government with an absolute discretion to grant or not to grant any compassionate allowance, the only restriction being that if granted it shall not exceed the maximum of two thirds of the pension that would be admissible on medical certificate. It is practically impossible in view of the wide variations that naturally exist in the circumstances attending each case, to lay down categorically, precise principles that can uniformly be applied to individual cases. Each case has, therefore, to be considered on its merits and a conclusion has be reached on the question whether there were any such extenuating features in the case as would make the punishment awarded, though it may have been necessary in the interest of Government, unduly hard on the individual. In considering this question it has been the practice to take into account not only the actual misconduct or course of misconduct which occasioned the dismissal or removal of the officer, but also the kind of service he has rendered. Where the course of misconduct carried with it the legitimate inference that the Officer's service has been dishonest there can seldom be any good case for a compassionate allowance. Poverty is not an essential condition precedent to the grant of compassionate allowance, but special regard is also occasionally paid to the fact that officer has a wife and children dependent upon him, though this factor by itself, is not, except perhaps in the most exceptional circumstances, sufficient for the grant of a compassionate allowance."
(3.) The Rule provides that no pension is to be granted to a Government employee who has been dismissed or removed for mis-conduct, insolvency or inefficiency. Admittedly, the petitioner had been removed from service although the word 'termination' has been used relating to an absence of nine years. We, therefore, hold that in this situation the word termination would clearly dis-entitle the appellant to the payment of pension. Even otherwise, we are of the opinion that the present matter is clearly one where the discretion available to us under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be exercised in favour of the appellant. We thus upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.;