Delhi High Court – Orders
Vinod Kumar Garg (Ex. Jr. Engineer) vs Bses Yamuna Power Limited & Anr on 4 May, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9304/2025
VINOD KUMAR GARG (EX. JR. ENGINEER) .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. V. K. Sharma and Ms. Sakshi,
Advocates.
versus
BSES YAMUNA POWER LIMITED & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Vikas Mehta,
Advocates for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 04.05.2026
1. The Petitioner, a former Junior Engineer with BSES Yamuna Power
Limited/Respondent No. 1, has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution to
assail order dated 14th May, 2025 passed by Respondent No. 1, rejecting his
request for compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the Central Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 2021.1 He further seeks directions for release of
gratuity and leave encashment.
Factual Background
2. The Petitioner joined the erstwhile Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking
in the late 1980s. He was appointed on regular basis as a Technical Helper
on 3rd February, 1988 and was promoted from time to time. On 3rd August
1
“CCS (Pension) Rules”
W.P.(C) 9304/2025 Page 1 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/05/2026 at 20:47:26
1994, an FIR was registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988,2 alleging demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of INR
500/- from a consumer in relation to an electricity matter. The Petitioner was
tried by the Special Judge and convicted under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC
Act. By order dated 28th March 2002, he was sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for one and a half years on each count, along with fine. His
criminal appeal was dismissed by this Court on 7 th January, 2009. The
Supreme Court, by judgment dated 27th November, 2019 in Criminal Appeal
No. 1781/2009, affirmed the conviction and sentence.
3. The Supreme Court held that the demand of bribe, payment of INR
500/-, the trap and recovery stood proved, and that the contradictions relied
upon by the Petitioner did not undermine the proof of demand, payment and
recovery. The conviction thus rests on a final judicial determination that the
Petitioner accepted a bribe in discharge of public duties.
4. Following the dismissal of the criminal appeal, Respondent No. 1
issued a show cause notice dated 23rd December, 2019 proposing the
Petitioner’s removal from service under Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules,
1965. On the same day, the Petitioner submitted a reply, not addressing the
merits of the notice, but seeking an extension of time on the ground that he
was required to surrender before the court on 24 th December, 2019. The
order of the learned Special Judge dated 24 th December, 2019 records that
the Petitioner surrendered before the court and was taken into custody to
undergo the remaining sentence.
5. On 8th January, 2020, the competent authority imposed the penalty of
removal from service under Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, holding that
2
“PCA Act”
W.P.(C) 9304/2025 Page 2 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/05/2026 at 20:47:26
the conduct leading to the Petitioner’s conviction rendered his further
retention in service undesirable and that the gravity of the offence warranted
removal.
6. The Petitioner thereafter preferred a revision petition seeking
conversion of the penalty of removal into compulsory retirement. By order
dated 31st January 2025, the revisional authority rejected the revision.
7. Separately, the Petitioner submitted an application dated 23rd October,
2024, seeking compassionate allowance and gratuity under Rule 41 of CCS
(Pension) Rules. He stated that he had served DESU/DVB/BYPL for more
than three decades and that, apart from the 1994 incident, his service record
was unblemished. He further highlighted his medical condition, submitting
that he suffers from obstructive sleep apnea, diabetes, hypertension and
chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, and added that his wife is also
seriously ill. He also emphasised his financial hardship, asserting that his
sons have deserted him, that his GPF accumulation has been exhausted, and
that he has no meaningful source of livelihood.
8. The competent authority rejected the application by the impugned
order dated 14th May, 2025, to the following effect:
“WHEREAS Shri V.K. Garg, Ex- Jr. Engineer, E.No.40130376 was
removed from service with effect from 08.01.2020 consequent upon
dismissal of his Criminal Appeal by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its
judgment dated 27.11.2019 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the
conviction of Sh. V.K. Garg under section 7 and 13 of the Act and
sentences as imposed in the matter related to his acceptance of bribe from
a customer way back in 1994.
AND WHEREAS aggrieved by the order of the competent authority dated
08.01.2020, the aforesaid Shri Garg filed a revision petition under Rule-
29 of the CCS(CCA) Rules,1965, which was rejected by the competent
authority vide Order No. HR/DC/Rev. Petition/VKG/2024-25 dated 31st
January, 2025.
W.P.(C) 9304/2025 Page 3 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/05/2026 at 20:47:26
AND WHEREAS the aforementioned Shri V.K. Garg submitted an
application dated 23.10.2024 requesting for grant of Compassionate
Allowance under Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021.
AND WHEREAS in his aforementioned application, Shri V.K. Garg
submitted claiming, inter-alia that he has not enough means to survive in
these difficult times as his both sons have deserted him after dismissal of
his appeal by the Supreme Court. He and his wife are suffering from long
term diseases and finding increasingly difficult to meet the cost of
treatment. He also stated that he had served the company for more than
three decades with complete dedication and honesty except for that
unfortunate incident of 1994.
AND WHEREAS the “submissions” of Shri V.K. Garg have been carefully
examined by the competent authority in detail on the basis of available
documents, proposition of law and guiding principles contained in
Government of India’s decisions, which, inter-alia, provide that in case
the misconduct carries with it, the legitimate inference that the officer’s
service has been dishonest, there can seldom be any good ground for
grant of a compassionate allowance. Since conviction of Sh. V.K. Garg in
a bribery case has been finally upheld by the Supreme Court, it leaves no
ground in the present facts and circumstances for the competent authority
to sanction a compassionate allowance.
The competent authority has also observed that it does not find existence
of most exceptional circumstances in the case to sanction compassionate
allowance to Shri V.K. Garg.
NOW, THEREFORE, the application of Shri V.K. Garg for grant of
compassionate allowance under Rule-41 CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 is
hereby rejected by the competent authority.”
Submissions
9. Mr. V. K. Sharma, counsel for the Petitioner, contends that the
impugned order proceeds on a misreading of Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension)
Rules. This Rule vests discretion in the competent authority to grant
compassionate allowance even in cases of dismissal or removal from
service, where the case is found deserving of special consideration. The
authority, therefore, could not have rejected the Petitioner’s claim solely on
the ground of his conviction and consequent removal, without undertaking
an assessment of his case on relevant considerations, including his past
service record and humanitarian factors.
W.P.(C) 9304/2025 Page 4 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/05/2026 at 20:47:26
10. In support, reliance is placed on the Petitioner’s long tenure of
service, an appreciation letter issued by the Head (EHV), BYPL, and a
safety certificate awarded during the 48th National Safety Week in March
2019. The appreciation letter records his dedication in attending to faulty
cables and restoring twelve 66 kV faulty cables, while the safety certificate
recognises him as a “Suraksha Mitra” for his contribution towards
enhancing the safety culture at BYPL.
11. It is further urged that the incident is old, and that Respondent No. 1
itself permitted the Petitioner to remain in service for several years even
after his conviction by the Trial Court. The Petitioner also relies on his
medical condition, the illness of his wife, the absence of any regular source
of income, and the alleged desertion by his sons. According to the Petitioner,
these circumstances bring his case within the compassionate ambit of Rule
12. The Petitioner further seeks to draw parity with one K.L. Gandhi, Ex-
Section Officer, Ministry of Labour & Employment, and relies upon his case
as a precedent in support of his claim for grant of compassionate allowance
under Rule 41.
13. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar, Senior Counsel for
Respondent No. 1, submits that compassionate allowance is not a vested
right; it is an exception to the rule that dismissal or removal entails forfeiture
of pension and gratuity. The Petitioner was convicted of corruption, and the
conviction has attained finality up to the Supreme Court. The misconduct
attributed to the Petitioner involves dishonesty, personal gain and misuse of
public office. Reliance is placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court in
W.P.(C) 9304/2025 Page 5 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/05/2026 at 20:47:26
Mahinder Dutt Sharma v. Union of India,3 to submit that such misconduct
ordinarily disentitles an employee from compassionate allowance.
Respondent No. 1 also points to the Petitioner’s delay in approaching the
authority and submits that he has not established any legally compelling
exceptional circumstance warranting indulgence.
Issues
14. The following issues arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the impugned order dated 14th May, 2025 suffers from non-
application of mind or any legal infirmity in the manner in which Rule 41
has been applied.
(ii) Whether the Petitioner has made out a case “deserving of special
consideration” within the meaning of Rule 41.
(iii) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to any direction for release of gratuity
or leave encashment.
Legal Framework
15. Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules provides that a government
servant who is dismissed or removed from service forfeits his pension and
gratuity. The proviso empowers the competent authority, if the case is
“deserving of special consideration”, to sanction compassionate allowance
not exceeding two-thirds of the pension or gratuity, or both, which would
have been admissible if the employee had retired on superannuation pension.
The Rule requires consideration of the actual misconduct which occasioned
dismissal or removal, the kind of service rendered, and, in exceptional
circumstances, family dependency and other relevant factors.
3
(2014) 11 SCC 684.
W.P.(C) 9304/2025 Page 6 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/05/2026 at 20:47:26
16. Rule 41 embodies two distinct propositions that must be carefully
distinguished. First, dismissal or removal ordinarily entails forfeiture of
pension and gratuity. Second, notwithstanding such forfeiture, a limited
discretion is preserved in the competent authority to grant compassionate
allowance where the case is “deserving of special consideration”. This
discretion, though compassionate in its objective, is structured and not
unbounded: it cannot be converted into a parallel pensionary regime for
employees removed on account of serious misconduct; equally, it cannot be
denied by a mechanical invocation of dismissal or removal, for it is precisely
that contingency which triggers the applicability of Rule 41.
17. In Mahinder Dutt Sharma, the Supreme Court identified certain
categories of misconduct which ordinarily disentitle an employee from
compassionate allowance, including acts involving moral turpitude;
dishonesty towards the employer; acts designed for personal gain; deliberate
harm to third party interests; and conduct of a depraved, perverted, wicked
or treacherous character.
18. This Court, in Usha Devi v. Union of India,4 relying on Mahinder
Dutt Sharma, emphasised that dismissal from service is not, by itself, an
automatic bar to compassionate allowance. The nature and gravity of the
misconduct is crucial, and compassionate allowance may be considered
where the misconduct does not fall within the disqualifying categories
identified by the Supreme Court.
Discussion and Reasons
19. The Petitioner’s case is not without a human element. He relies upon
his advancing age, medical condition, loss of income and alleged
W.P.(C) 9304/2025 Page 7 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/05/2026 at 20:47:26
estrangement from his sons. These circumstances are not to be lightly
disregarded. The scope of judicial review, however, remains confined: the
question is whether the decision of the competent authority to decline
compassionate allowance is vitiated by illegality, arbitrariness or perversity,
and not whether this Court, if placed in its position, might have taken a more
lenient view.
20. The nature of the misconduct assumes central significance in such a
determination. This is not a case of mere negligence, unauthorised absence
or an error of judgment. It concerns a proven act of bribery. The Petitioner
was found to have demanded and accepted illegal gratification from a
consumer in relation to an electricity matter, a finding that has attained
finality up to the Supreme Court. The amount involved may be INR 500/-,
but the gravity of the misconduct is not measured in monetary terms. The
wrong lies in the conversion of a public duty into a source of private gain.
For an ordinary consumer, even a small bribe represents the unlawful price
for access to an essential public service.
21. The submission of counsel for the Petitioner that Rule 41 does not
stand excluded merely because an employee has been removed from service
is well-founded. The Rule itself proceeds on the premise that dismissal or
removal has occurred. The impugned order, however, cannot be construed as
rejecting the Petitioner’s claim on that ground alone. It considers the
principal pleas advanced by the Petitioner, namely, his alleged lack of
means, the asserted desertion by his sons, the illness of both the Petitioner
and his spouse, his length of service, and the contention that the incident of
1994 was a one-off lapse. The authority thereafter applies the Government
4
2024 SCC OnLine Del 7116.
W.P.(C) 9304/2025 Page 8 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/05/2026 at 20:47:26
of India guidelines, which indicate that where the misconduct gives rise to a
legitimate inference of dishonesty in service, the grant of compassionate
allowance would seldom be justified. On that basis, it concludes that the
case does not disclose circumstances of such weight as would warrant the
exercise of discretion in favour of the Petitioner.
22. The attempt to characterise the incident as an “unfortunate” or
isolated lapse is equally untenable. A proved demand and acceptance of a
bribe by a public-facing employee is not a misfortune that befell him, but
misconduct attributable to him. The passage of time does not dilute its legal
significance.
23. The Petitioner’s long service and subsequent commendations,
including the appreciation letter and safety certificate, are relevant features.
They indicate that the Petitioner discharged his duties usefully and was, at
certain points, recognised for his contribution. Such material can weigh in
favour of an employee where the misconduct is not rooted in dishonesty. In
the present case, however, the misconduct strikes at the core of probity in
public service. Rule 41 expressly requires the authority to consider “the
actual misconduct which occasioned the penalty of dismissal or removal
from service” along with the kind of service rendered. Where the
misconduct is one of bribery, the authority is entitled to accord greater
weight to the nature and gravity of the offence than to subsequent
commendations.
24. The contention that Respondent No. 1 did not immediately remove
the Petitioner upon his conviction by the Trial Court also does not advance
his case. For nearly eighteen years thereafter, the conviction remained under
challenge before this Court and the Supreme Court. It attained finality only
W.P.(C) 9304/2025 Page 9 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/05/2026 at 20:47:26
upon the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 27 th November, 2019, and
the employer acted thereafter. During this period, the Petitioner continued in
service, drawing salary and accruing service benefits. The decision of
Respondent No. 1 to await the outcome of the criminal proceedings operated
to the Petitioner’s advantage. It cannot now be converted into a legal
obligation to grant compassionate allowance once the conviction has
attained finality.
25. The Court has also taken the medical material into account. The
documents indicate that the Petitioner suffers from obstructive sleep apnea,
diabetes, hypertension and knee-related issues, and that his spouse is
undergoing psychiatric and neurological treatment. These are matters that
called for consideration, and the impugned order notes that illness of both
spouses was specifically pleaded. Rule 41 does not, however, lay down that
ill-health or family hardship will, by themselves, displace a finding of
corruption.
26. The plea that the Petitioner’s sons have deserted him rests solely on
his own assertion. Even assuming the same to be true, and acknowledging
that such a situation would be distressing, it does not follow that the decision
of the competent authority is rendered perverse on that ground alone. While
the availability of other legal remedies for maintenance does not dilute the
object of Rule 41, it underscores that the Rule is not intended to be the sole
statutory response to every instance of familial neglect.
27. Some emphasis was placed on the language employed in the
impugned order, which refers to “most exceptional circumstances”, whereas
Rule 41 speaks of cases “deserving of special consideration”. This Court
does not construe the use of such expression as introducing a higher
W.P.(C) 9304/2025 Page 10 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/05/2026 at 20:47:26
threshold than that contemplated by the Rule. The phrase has been used in
the context of a conviction for bribery, a category of misconduct which, as
noted by the Supreme Court, ordinarily disentitles an employee from the
grant of compassionate allowance. In that backdrop, the authority has
merely conveyed that the circumstances put forth by the Petitioner are
insufficient to outweigh the gravity of the misconduct. The impugned order
can therefore not be set aside merely on account of the use of a more
emphatic expression, so long as the substance of the applicable legal
standard has been correctly applied.
28. The reliance placed by the Petitioner on the case of K.L. Gandhi to
claim parity, wherein compassionate allowance was granted despite
conviction under the PC Act, does not advance the Petitioner’s case any
further. An order passed in the case of an individual employee does not
constitute a binding precedent for the employer in other matters. The
complete factual matrix of that case, including the nature of the service
record, the financial and medical circumstances, and the considerations that
weighed with the competent authority, is not before this Court. Rule 41
contemplates an individual assessment of each case, and Article 14 does not
require a mechanical replication of a discretionary decision in all other
situations.
29. Insofar as gratuity is concerned, Rule 41 proceeds on the basis that
dismissal or removal from service entails forfeiture of pension and gratuity
and permits consideration of both only within the limited framework of
compassionate allowance, subject to the competent authority sanctioning
such relief. Once the decision to decline compassionate allowance is upheld,
W.P.(C) 9304/2025 Page 11 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/05/2026 at 20:47:26
there remains no surviving basis for issuance of a mandamus directing
release of gratuity.
30. The claim to leave encashment also cannot be accepted in its present
form. The petition does not identify any specific statutory provision under
which leave encashment would remain payable despite removal from
service. In the absence of a clearly pleaded legal foundation, the Court
cannot issue a general direction for release of leave encashment.
Conclusion
31. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that
the conclusion that the Petitioner’s case did not warrant a departure from the
settled principle under Rule 41 cannot be characterised as irrational,
perverse or legally unsustainable. The competent authority was, therefore,
justified in concluding that the Petitioner’s case is not “deserving of special
consideration” within the meaning of Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules.
Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned
order dated 14th May, 2025.
32. Dismissed.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
MAY 4, 2026/hc
W.P.(C) 9304/2025 Page 12 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/05/2026 at 20:47:26
