HC dismisses sacked Navik's plea for compassionate allowance on humanitarian ground

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea moved by a Navik, who was dismissed from the Indian Coast Guard for deserting the service without informing the authorities, seeking compassionate allowance on humanitarian ground. A bench of justices S Muralidhar and I S Mehta observed that the "charge of desertion is indeed a serious one" and the man had not offered any acceptable explanation for absenting from the service from March 15, 2010.

"...this court is unable to find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the respondents (authorities). The petition is dismissed," the bench said. The man was enrolled as a Navik with the Indian Coast Guard Services with effect from September 5, 1998. He filed the petition seeking a direction to the authorities to grant him compassionate allowance on the humanitarian ground under the CCS (Pension) Rules from the date of his dismissal -- March 15, 2013 -- along with the arrears of pension and gratuity.

According to the man, in June 2007, he started "feeling abnormal" due to the stress and strain of his job and in March 2010, he had applied for voluntary retirement. He has said this request was accepted by the competent authority on April 1, 2010, but he was shocked when his wife received a letter on April 17, 2015, informing her that he had been dismissed from service.

The man has claimed that he had undergone treatment for "mental illness" and has placed a document in this regard on record. The authorities, in their response, said though the man's request for voluntary retirement was approved in April 2010, he deserted the service on March 15 that year, without intimating and was "marked run".

The authorities had informed his father and the police about it and when there was no intimation for three years, the man was dismissed with effect from March 15, 2013, on the ground of desertion. They claimed that the man was a habitual offender and previously also, he had deserted 12 times while serving in various units and had been duly punished for such misconduct.

The court noted that apart from a bare denial of the other averments concerning the past incidents of desertion, the man was unable to substantiate that he had actually been receiving any treatment for mental illness. It added that the document, placed by him on record, was of no assistance to him to show that he was suffering from any mental illness and he had sufficient time to produce the necessary proof of undergoing any psychiatric treatment.