Facts
The applicant, Sh. Kamal Pal Sharma, joined the respondents' service as a Workcharge-Chowkidar on November 20, 1976.
Source reference: no citationHe was subsequently appointed as a regular Security Guard on July 13, 1979, and promoted to LDC on May 15, 1989.
Source reference: p.2While working as LDC, he was arrested on September 25, 2008, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, placed under deemed suspension, and later reinstated on January 18, 2012.
Source reference: p.3He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2½ years, remained absent from duty from April 16, 2012, to January 5, 2013, and rejoined after being granted bail.
Source reference: p.3Following a show cause notice, he was removed from service on June 21, 2013.
Source reference: p.3-4The applicant then submitted representations seeking 2nd and 3rd financial upgradations under the ACP/MACP Schemes, which were rejected, citing his failure to pass the departmental type test and forfeiture of service due to removal.
Source reference: p.4-5Issues
Whether the applicant, having been removed from service, is entitled to service benefits for the period preceding his removal
Source reference: p.8Whether the applicant's past service stood forfeited due to his removal from service under Rule 24 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972
Source reference: p.8Whether the applicant's failure to pass the prescribed departmental Hindi type test rendered him ineligible for financial upgradations
Source reference: p.5, p.7Law Applied
The Tribunal primarily applied Rule 24(1) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, which states that "Dismissal or removal of a Government servant from a service or post entails forfeiture of his past service".
Source reference: p.5-6The judgment also mentioned Rule 9(1) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, which provides that any claim to leave credit ceases upon dismissal or removal.
Source reference: p.6Reasoning
The Tribunal considered the respondents' argument that the applicant was removed from service on June 21, 2013, prior to his superannuation.
Source reference: p.8The respondents invoked Rule 24 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, contending that the applicant's past service was forfeited due to his removal.
Source reference: p.8The Tribunal noted that the respondents had previously rejected the applicant's claim for 2nd ACP on January 29, 2015, which the applicant had not challenged in the present OA.
Source reference: p.9While the Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's submission regarding passing the Hindi type test and the respondents' admission in paragraph 4.2 of the counter-affidavit, it determined that the issue of the type test was secondary to the forfeiture of service.
Source reference: p.9The Tribunal concluded that, in light of Rule 24 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the applicant's past service stood forfeited by virtue of his removal from service on June 21, 2013.
Source reference: p.9Consequently, he was not entitled to claim any benefits for the period prior to his removal.
Source reference: p.9Holding
The Tribunal held that the applicant's past service stood forfeited on account of his removal from service on June 21, 2013, as per Rule 24 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Therefore, he is not entitled to claim any benefits for the period prior to his removal.
Source reference: p.9The present OA lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Source reference: p.10Original Court PDF
Kamal Pal Sharma, Ex-LDC v. Chairman, Delhi Development Authority & Anr. (O.A. No. 310/2023)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in