Twitter
Advertisement

22-years of honest service comes to the rescue of Navy man held guilty of theft

Latest News
article-main
FacebookTwitterWhatsappLinkedin

An unblemished service record of 22 years with the Indian Navy came to the rescue of a personnel who was caught stealing copper rods, weighing approximately 10 kg which were tied around his waist and inside his clothes, in 2010 at the Tiger Gate.

A division bench of Justice Naresh Patil and Justice B P Colabawala, quashed and set aside the termination order handed down to Ramchandra Sadhu and directed the authorities to impose a penalty of compulsory retirement and he be paid pensionary benefits in accordance with law.

Inquiry initiated after Sadhu was caught stealing alleged that he had not maintained devotion to his duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a government servant, thereby violated the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules. Sadhu pleaded guilty before the inquiry commission and sought for a sympathetic punishment.

However, on July 27, 2010, he was dismissed. Sadhu then approached higher authorities in revision with similar prayer for a sympathetic view, it too was rejected. Thus he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), seeking the quashing of his dismissal, and consider the case, for awarding a lesser penalty of compulsory retirement. This too came to be rejected.

Advocates Kamlakar Koli and Vaishali Benere, argued in the high court for Sadhu that, "The petitioner had faithfully served his employer for 22 years with an unblemished record and in the circumstances the penalty of dismissal from service meted out to him was extremely harsh and disproportionate."

Further, it was argued that the tribunal had failed to take a sympathetic view, especially in view of the fact that he had pleaded guilty to the charges against him at the very first instance and that the theft was committed by him under the influence of financial disability. In four other similar cases a sympathetic approach was adopted.

Advocate Ravindra Lokhande, appearing for the Navy, opposed the petition and argued that, "The charge was of theft of government property, he was therefore rightly dismissed from service. The charges to which he pleaded guilty were of a very grave nature, the penalty imposed upon him was justified."

The bench after considering the entire evidence noted: "Taking into consideration the period of service of the petitioner, and his unblemished record in serving his employer, we are of the view, that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the punishment meted out to the him, namely dismissal from service, was harsh. 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."

Find your daily dose of news & explainers in your WhatsApp. Stay updated, Stay informed-  Follow DNA on WhatsApp.
Advertisement

Live tv

Advertisement
Advertisement