THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR W.P.No.14297 of 2000 Date: 16.06.2011 Between: The General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad, and 4 others .. Petitioners AND Syed Muneer, Vijayawada .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR W.P.No.14297 of 2007 ORDER (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed): The writ petition is filed to issue an order, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order dated 23.02.2000 passed in O.A.No.1697 of 1997 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: While the respondent, who is applicant in the said O.A., was working as Trainee Switch Man under the control of Traffic Inspector, Bezvada, Eluru, he fell sick and remained absent from duties with effect from 12.04.1979. He was continuously sick due to mental depression and was not in a position to attend duty. For his unauthorized absence, a charge memo was issued by the Divisional Operations Manager, South Central Railway, Vijayawada on 28.06.1995. He denied the charge. A detailed inquiry was conducted by the Area Officer, Guntur and in his report dated 18.06.1996, the charge against the respondent was not proved. After perusal of the said report, the Divisional Operations Manager disagreed with the findings of Area Officer. After furnishing the disagreement proceedings dated 09.05.1996, the respondent submitted his explanation on 15.05.1996. The Senior Divisional Operations Manager, South Central Railway, Vijayawada after perusal of the entire material, agreed with the Divisional Operations Manager, Vijayawada and imposed penalty for removal of the respondent from service, through proceedings dated 09.08.1996. Aggrieved by the said removal, the respondent filed an appeal before the Additional Divisional Manager, South Central Railway, Vijayawada. The appeal was dismissed and the Additional Divisional Manager confirmed the punishment of removal, through order dated 02.12.1996. The respondent preferred revision before the Chief Operations Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabad. The Chief Operations Manager also rejected the revision and confirmed the punishment of removal, through order dated 25.06.1997. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed O.A.No.1697 of 1997 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. After perusal of the entire material, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. setting aside the removal orders of the respondent and directed that the respondent shall be reinstated into service forthwith and his absence from the date of removal till date of reinstatement shall be regularized as per rules. The Tribunal gave liberty to the railway officials to proceed against the respondent in accordance with the Rules, 1968. Aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal dated 23.02.2000, the South Central Railway filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard Sri R.S. Murthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners-South Central Railway officials and Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners/South Central Railway Officials submitted that the impugned order of the Tribunal, dated 23.02.2000 is arbitrary and not in accordance with law; that the Tribunal failed appreciate the Railway Service Rules and it is a fit case to review the orders of the Tribunal; that Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (for short ‘the Rules’) empowers the Railway Authorities either to sanction the compassionate allowance or reject the same and therefore, he prays this Court to direct the railway authorities to consider the case of the respondent in accordance with Rule 65 of the Rules by setting aside the impugned order. 5. In this connection, it is appropriate to extract Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993: “Compassionate allowance.—(1) A railway servant who is dismissed or removed from service shall forfeit his pension and gratuity: Provided that the authority competent to dismiss or remove him from service may, if the case is deserving of special consideration, sanction a compassionate allowance not exceeding two-thirds of pension or gratuity or both which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on compensation pension. (2) A compassionate allowance sanctioned under the proviso to sub-rule (1) shall not be less than three hundred seventy five rupees per mensem.” 6. A perusal of above Rule 65 of the Rules, it is clear that the railway authorities competent to dismiss or remove a railway servant from service may, if the case is deserving of special consideration, sanction a compassionate allowance not exceeding two-thirds of pension or gratuity or both which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on compensation pension and if so, the compassionate allowance shall not be less than Rs.375/- per mensem. 7. In view of the above Rule, the Railway authorities have discretionary powers either to sanction compassionate allowance or reject the same and the Court cannot interfere with the same. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the railways authorities to consider the case of the respondent in accordance with Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 23.02.2000 passed in O.A.No.1697 of 1997 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. No costs. __________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ________________ K.G. Shankar, J Date: 16.06.2011 Isn