WP(C) 4295/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. P. KATAKEY JUDGMENT & ORDER (oral) 1. Heard Mr. D. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. G . Goswami, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The challenge in the writ petition is against an order dated 7.6.2010 pa ssed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, in O.A. No. 96 of 2009. By the aforesaid order the learned Tribunal has upheld the order of removal of the petitioner’s husband from service made on 6.10.97. At the same ti me, the learned Tribunal has directed the respondents to release the amounts due to the writ petitioner on account of provident fund and GIS. Insofar as the cla im of recovery of certain amounts from the petitioner is concerned, it was obser ved by the learned Tribunal that it will be open for the respondents to take app ropriate steps to effect such recovery as per the Rules in force. 3. The brief facts that will be required to be noticed for the purpose of c onsideration of the appeal may now be stated. The writ petitioner’s husband, one Haru Dey, was convicted by the learne d Special Judge, CBI Court, Assam, under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by judgment and order dated 14.10.96. Different punishments w ere awarded ranging from rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months to rig orous imprisonment for a period of four years in addition to different amounts o f fine. The aforesaid conviction and the sentences imposed were challenged in ap peal before this Court. By order dated 9.2.2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No.242 of 1996 this Court while upholding the conviction of Haru Dey as ordered by the learned Special Judge, CBI, reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. It appears that following the aforesaid conviction made by th e learned trial court by order dated 6.10.97 Haru Dey was removed from service i n exercise of powers under Rule 14(1) of the Railway Services (Discipline and Ap peal) Rules, 1968 which empowers the Disciplinary Authority to take such discipl inary measures as may be considered fit following a conviction on a criminal cha rge. 4. The aforesaid order of removal from service was assailed by Haru Dey by instituting a proceeding before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guw ahati Bench i.e. O.A. No.196/2008. As the departmental appeal against the penalt y of removal was pending at that point of time the learned Tribunal by order dat ed 12.11.2008 directed for disposal of the appeal and consideration of the repre sentation(s) that were submitted in this regard. Following the said order of the learned Tribunal the concerned authority passed an order dated 6.4.2009 upholdi ng the penalty of removal and at the same time refusing to grant compassionate a llowance to Haru Dey on the ground that as his removal was a sequel to his convi ction in a criminal case on charges of forgery, cheating and corruption the pres ent case was not fit for grant of compassionate allowance. Aggrieved, Haru Dey i nstituted the O.A. No.96/2009 out of which the present writ petition has arisen. It may be noticed that during the pendency of the said proceeding before the le arned Tribunal Haru Dey had expired and the proceedings in question were continu ed by the present writ petitioner who is his wife on being permitted to do so by the learned Tribunal. 5. Sri D. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, has mentioned that the only grievance raised in the petition is against the order of removal a nd the refusal of grant of compassionate allowance. Sri Sarma has submitted that even if the order of removal is held to be valid by this Court compassionate al lowance can still be granted under Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rul es, 1993. In this regard Sri Sarma has also placed before the Court a copy of a Circular dated 4.11.2008 which lays down the norms for grant of compassionate al lowance. 6. Under the provisions of Rule 14(1) of the Railway Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 following the conviction of an employee on a criminal charg e penalty as may be considered appropriate can be passed by the disciplinary aut hority without holding an enquiry. In the present case the penalty of removal fr om service was imposed on the husband of the petitioner following the conviction recorded by the learned Special Judge, CBI Court, Assam, which order has also b een upheld in appeal. The petitioner cannot have any grievance with regard to di spensation of an enquiry prior to imposition of the penalty. Whether on the char ges that were found to be proved against the petitioner’s husband the punishment of removal is appropriate and adequate had been considered by the disciplinary authority and the same ought not to be lightly considered by this Court for deci ding as to whether the said punishment needs any interference. As charges of che ating, forgery and corruption had been proved in the present case we do not cons ider the punishment of removal to be in any way disproportionate. 7. This will bring the Court to a consideration of the entitlement of the p etitioner to compassionate allowance. Undoubtedly, Rule 65 of the Railway Servic es (Pension) Rules vests a power in the concerned authority to grant compassiona te allowance following the dismissal or removal of a Railway servant. However, t he proviso to Rule 65(1) of the Pension Rules makes it clear that the said power is to be exercised only in cases which deserve special consideration. 8. The Circular dated 4.11.2008 placed before the Court, though is in a sli ghtly different context i.e. the power to reopen cases where no order of compass ionate allowance has been passed at the time of passing of orders of dismissal o r removal, the principles laid therein would govern the exercise of powers under Rule 65 also. A reading of the aforesaid Circular dated 4.11.2008 would go to s how that the power to grant compassionate allowance at the time of dismissal or removal of a Railway servant is a highly discretionary power and each case is re quired to be dealt with on its own merits. Clause 3(iv) of the aforesaid Circula r makes it clear that award of compassionate allowance should not be considered if the Railway servant had been dishonest and his removal/dismissal had been mad e on the said ground. Clause 3(v) of the Circular provides that poverty is not a n essential condition precedent to the award of compassionate allowance. However , due consideration can be made of the individual’s spouse and children dependen t upon him. 9. The language contained in the proviso to Rule 65 of the Pension Rules an d the norms spelt out by the Circular dated 4.11.2008 would clearly go to show t hat grant of compassionate allowance would depend on the existence of mitigating factors in any given case. In the present case by order dated 6.4.2009 the conc erned authority took the view that the husband of the petitioner, Haru Dey, was convicted on charges of forgery, cheating and corruption and he had been removed from service following the said conviction. In such circumstances, the authorit y had taken the view that the case before it did not deserve a special considera tion. 10. The facts and circumstances considered by the concerned authority to arr ive at the decision to refuse compassionate allowance to the husband of the peti tioner can by no stretch of reasoning be said to be irrelevant or extraneous. Re levant facts having been taken into account to arrive at a particular conclusion and that too in the exercise of the discretionary power of the authority it can not be said that the discretion vested had been exercised in an arbitrary or pal pably irregular manner so as to warrant the interference of the Court in the exe rcise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 11. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in this writ petition . It is accordingly dismissed. The order of the learned Tribunal dated 7.6.2010 passed in O.A. No.96/2009 is hereby affirmed.