Mumbai: Terming as “harsh” the Centre’s
decision for dismissing a government employee from service for stealing government property,
the Bombay High Court has set aside the impugned order and
instead lowered the punishment to compulsory
retirement from service.
Justices
Naresh Patil and BP Colabawalla set aside the July 27, 2010, order of dismissal of
Ramchandra Goya Sadhu, who was caught stealing copper rods on May 14, 2010, by the Defense Security Corps
Platoon at Tiger Gate here. He was found to have tied the rods around his
waist, hiding them inside his clothes.
The court also set aside the March 15, 2013, order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which had upheld his dismissal from
service for committing theft of government property.
Instead, the bench ordered that the said employee be slapped with the penalty of compulsory retirement under Rule 40 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and paid pensionary benefits in accordance with law.
Sadhu had cited a government order wherein four employees who
were facing a similar charge of stealing property were not
dismissed but given a lesser punishment. Some of them were compulsorily retired from
service while others were not given increments for two years.
“Taking into consideration the period of service of the
petitioner and his unblemished record in serving his
employer, we are of the view that the punishment meted out… namely dismissal
from service, was harsh,” the bench noted in its order, which was delivered
recently.
“We find that the interest of justice would be met if the order
of dismissal of the petitioner is set aside and, instead, the lesser punishment
of compulsory retirement from service is imposed,” the bench said.
“We are not for a moment condoning the actions of the
petitioner. The charge of theft is indeed a serious one, but looking to the
totality of the facts, we feel that in the present case it
would be punishment enough if the petitioner is compulsorily retired from
service so that he receives pensionary benefits as per the rules,” the judges observed.
The bench said it had taken a sympathetic view in the case only
because the petitioner has an unblemished record of 22 years of service and
other similarly-placed employees found guilty on theft charges were slapped with penalties lighter
than what was meted out to him.
PTI //copy//