The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a representation for compassionate allowance. The petitioner, removed from service decades ago on a non-honourable acquittal on moral turpitude grounds, could not prove his case as records were destroyed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND
THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS
WRIT PETITION No.201 OF 2003
ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed to set aside the impugned letter Nos.B/P 227/II/OA No.424/2001, dated 17.07.2001 and B/P.227/II/OA.No.424/2001, dated 17.01.2002, issued by respondent No.2 and direct the respondents to sanction compassionate allowance with effect from 01.01.1993 till date in terms of Rule 65 of the Railway Servants (Pension) Rules, 1993 (for short, ‘the Rules’) and Serial Circular No.145/95, dated 01.12.1995, of CPO/SC with consequential benefits of arrears.
2. Petitioner herein filed Original Application No.424 of 2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) after lapse of thirty two years with a prayer to sanction compassionate allowance. The said Original Application was disposed of on 16.04.2001 with a direction to the respondents to sanction compassionate allowance to the petitioner as per Serial Circular No.145 of 1995, dated 01.12.1995. In pursuance of the said order, dated 16.04.2001, the petitioner filed representation on 31.03.2000 before the Divisional Railway Manager, Vijayawada, but the same was rejected by its letters, dated 17.07.2001 and 17.01.2002. Challenging the said rejection order, he filed Original Application No.697 of 2002, which was dismissed on the ground that he was involved in a case of moral turpitude, which was impugned in this Writ Petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that similarly situated persons were granted compassionate allowance in terms of Rule 65 of the Rules and Serial Circular No.145/95, dated 01.12.1995, of CPO/SC and hence, he prays to allow the Writ Petition.
4. On the other land, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner was removed from service in the year 1968; that records relating to the petitioner would not have been available with the Department as they were destroyed and therefore, it is not possible for the Department to consider his case in terms of Rule 65 of the Rules and hence, he prays to dismiss the Writ Petition.
5. It is not in dispute before this Court that in a criminal prosecution, the petitioner was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The said acquittal is not an honourable acquittal, because benefit of doubt was given to him. Basing on enquiry, he was removed from service in the year 1968. Petitioner has not challenged the order of removal. After lapse of thirty years, he filed the present application to consider his case in terms of Rule 65 of the Rules.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on an unreported decision in SMT. ZULEKHA BEGUM V. U.O.I rep. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY AND ANOTHER (W.P.No.1381 of 2006), whereunder the respondents therein are directed to consider the case of the petitioner therein as per Rule 65 of the Rules. That is a case where the petitioner was removed from service for unauthorized absence and finally he died in the year 1992. In the present case, the facts are entirely different.
7. He also relied upon unreported decision in D.RAMULU V. U.O.I rep. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (W.P.No.24619 of 2002), whereunder this Court directed the respondent therein to produce the evidence and material for grant of compassionate allowance. On what grounds the Writ Petition was disposed of are not known.
8. But, in the present case, as the petitioner was involved in a case of moral turpitude, the respondents rejected the representation of the petitioner for compassionate allowance. Furthermore, if any direction is given to consider the case of the petitioner as per Rule 65 of the Rules, it would be a futile exercise because the records are not available at this point of time as forty years have elapsed.
WRIT PETITION No.201 OF 2003 16.09.2014
YVL
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a railway servant removed more than thirty years ago on a non-honourable acquittal can be granted compassionate allowance in the absence of relevant records due to loss of records.
Petitioner
Respondent No.2 / CPO/SC
K.C. Bhanu
Anis
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
