SOMESH SAXENA v. D/O POST

2. The facts of the applicant is that late father of the applicant Mr. Subhash Chandra Saxena was appointed on the post of Gramin Dakpal in the year 1980. In August 2014 the applicant's father became seriously ill and suffered from Heart attack. His father had served the department for 38 years and died during the service which was blameless. As per audit dated 14.11.2014 by the Inspector Post Office, Western Sub Division, Bareilly an audit was conducted and no irregularity was found against the service of the applicant's father. An ex-party order was passed against the services of the applicant's father. Before he could reply the same, he became seriously ill and on 29.03.2018 his father died. There are four family members dependent and they have no source of livelihood to maintain subsistence of the family and to continue studies of his elder sister and himself. Elder brother of the applicant is living separately with his family. The applicant has passed intermediate and has attained the age of majority in July 2019 and so he request to grant benefit of compassionate appointment to maintain his family. He has given representation and reminder on 09.07.2019 and 12.09.2019 respectively.

3. The case of the respondents are that the father of the applicant late Subhash Chandra Saxena ex GDS BPM Sirauli BO Ram Nagar Bareilly was already removed from engagement after completion of disciplinary action under GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rule, 2011. One Dr. Mayank Gupta had preferred a complaint to SSPOs Bareilly on 27.08.2014 regarding non payment of the maturity amount of RD A/c No. 276664 which was opened in Sirauli by his parents Sri Ramesh Kumar Gupta and Smt. Anita Gupta. The matter was given for inquire by the squad of the then

Page 2 of 6

ASP (HQ), Bareilly and SDI (West), Bareilly vide SSPOs, Bareilly letter dated 27.08.2014. The squad inquired the mater and submitted his report dated 03.09.2014. In the report the squad found by his own admission Shri Subhash Chandra Saxena the then GDS BPM Sirauli BO that RD A/c No. 276664 was opened in Sirauli BO by Shri Ramesh Kumar Gupta and Smt. Anita Gupta with instalment of Rs. 1000/- per month on 28.02.2009 and the depositors had given him Rs. 1000/- each monthly regularly to deposit the instalment in the said account. He accepted that he entered the amount in the pass book and kept the amount with him impressing date stamp and putting his signature. Only the first instalment was taken into Government account and other instalments were not taken into Government account. He assured that he would return the whole amount with interest upto 13.09.2014. He was put off duty vide letter date 29.08.2014 and which was confirmed by SSPOs Bareilly vide memo dated 09.09.2014. After put off duty, Shri Subhash Chandra Saxena unauthorisedly received monthly instalments of RD A/c No. 28645 on various dates from the depositor Shri Izalal Ahmad concealing the fact of his put off duty. He was proceeded against rule 10 of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2011 vide memo dated 13.11.2015 and after due process he was awarded penalty of removal from engagement with immediate effect vide memo dated 30.06.2017 and per order of punishment dated 30.06.2017 the payment of subsistence allowance was also discontinued from that date. Shri Subhash Chandra Saxena has not appealed to the appellate authority against the said award punishment of removal from engagement by SSPOs Bareilly. Subsequently, Km. Priti Saxena submitted her application dated 25.04.2018 that certificate

Page 3 of 6

of Shri Subhash Chandra Saxena (died on 29.03.2018) in which she said that she is daughter of Shri Subhash Chandra Saxena and requested for compassionate appointment. She again submitted her application to the Hon'ble Minister of Communication on 08.06.2018, she was informed vide officer letter dated 20.06.2018 that her father had not died during engagement and he has already been removed from the engagement in the case of misappropriation, hence she is not eligible for compassionate appointment as per the departmental rules. She again submitted her application dated 09.07.2018. She was replied vide letter date 03.08.2018. She again submitted an application dated 17.09.2018 and the same filed as the status was already intimated to her. She filed RTI application on 17.09.2018 and provided with information vide letter date 19.11.2018. After that Shri Somesh Saxena of Sirauli submitted an application dated 12.09.2019 stating him as a son of late Subhash Chandra Saxena and requested for compassionate appointment for his family. He was informed vide letter dated 18.10.2019 that his father had not died during the engagement and he has already been removed from the engagement in the case of misappropriation, so he was not eligible for the compassionate appointment as per departmental rules. The applicant has filed the instant OA before this Tribunal which in the circumstances of the case is liable to be dismissed at the initial stage with heavy cost. Other contentions of the applicant are denied.

4. On record there is no rejoinder affidavit.

Page 4 of 6

5. Preliminary objection on behalf of the respondents are also filed, where similar facts are brought on record.

7. On 10.01.2023 on revised call no one appeared on behalf of the applicant. Respondents were represented by Shri V.K. Pandey, learned counsel who was heard in detail.

8. From the record available, it is evident that the deceased father of the applicant died after he was removed from service as per law and procedure. From the facts of the case, which is not denied, the removal was on various charges of embezzlement of funds which were deposited by various depositors, and he was found guilty and removed by awarding a penalty of removal from engagement w.e.f. 30.07.2017. Clearly no appeal against the said order of removal is filed or pending before any authority. Subsequently, on 29.03.2018 the said Shri Subhash Chandra Saxena has died after his removal. Hence, no case is made out that the deceased employee died in harness and so benefit of compassionate appointment can be extended to his family members. No malafide or procedural irregularity or any other specific grounds are taken why the decisions of the authorities have to be interfered with. Whereas, earlier applicant's sister and then the applicant has filed multiple applications for compassionate appointment and authorities have patiently replied to them and made them aware about the facts of the case and inspite those replies, applicant choose not to challenge them. Even first reply rejection was not challenged, as is evident from record. Hence, the applicant had no case from the beginning, and they are again and again bringing the same subject through fresh applications for

Page 5 of 6

which law of estopple will operate. Applicant's knowing fully well the facts of the removal of his father after due inquiry have come here suppressing the facts in the pleadings of the OA. It certainly attracts cost as if puts undue hardship on the respondents to deal with the same subject again and again at different forum. Such being the case and the facts, I pass following orders:-

"The OA bearing Diary No. 3484 of 2019 is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. Seeing the unusual facts of the case cost of Rs. 300/- is imposed on the applicant, to be deposited in the Government account."

(Dr. Sanjiv Kumar)

Member (A)

/Piyush/

Page 6 of 6