P.Aravindakshan vs Union Of India

Ashok Menon, J

The petitioner, an ex-Senior Ticket Examiner, Southern Railway, Tiruchirappalli Division, was dismissed from service for alleged gross financial irregularity. The revision and appeal filed against the departmental action did not succeed.

O.A.No.395/2010 filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench (for brevity "the Tribunal"), too did not succeed in bringing about any succor to him. The petitioner is thus before us and impugns Ext.P1 order of the Tribunal dated 12.01.2012.

The points urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the impugned order are:

1) That the enquiry was conducted by a person who did not have the authority.

2) That the evidence adduced against him in the enquiry was not adequate and sufficient to find him guilty.

3) That the punishment imposed is dis-proportionate and shocking and that considering his 36 years of unblemished and meritorious service, he should have been considered for grant of compassionate allowance.

On perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner did not raise any objection regarding the jurisdiction at any stage and therefore, we cannot at this stage consider his objection regarding authority of the enquiry. Hence, the first objection raised by the petitioner is not sustainable.

The second objection is regarding the appreciation of the evidence. The disciplinary authority, appellate authority as well as the revisional authority found that the charges against the petitioner proved. The Tribunal also has considered the evidence to be sufficient to find the charges against the petitioner sustainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in Union of India and others v. P.Gunasekaran, 2014 KHC 4721: AIR 2015 SC 545 held that the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of evidence. Sitting in writ jurisdiction, we do not intend to interfere with that finding of the departmental authorities, upheld by the Tribunal. The second point too is therefore found against the petitioner.

The last point urged for the petitioner is that considering his 36 years of unblemished and meritorious service, he ought to have been given the benefit of compassionate allowance. The petitioner has also produced certain certificates of meritorious service for various years in support of his claim. Records would show that the petitioner was earlier held up for similar misconduct and action was taken for his removal from service, which was later condoned. The allegation against the petitioner is one of financial irregularity. In Gunasekaran (supra) it was also held that the High Court cannot in exercise of its writ jurisdiction go into the proportionality of punishment so long as the punishment does not shock the conscience of the Court. Dismissal of the petitioner cannot be termed as a punishment shocking the conscience of the Court. However, the petitioner did not raise this issue regarding claim of compassionate allowance before the departmental authorities and hence his claim for grant of compassionate allowance was not considered. The claim of the petitioner that he is entitled to compassionate allowance, would therefore, have to be considered by the authorities and determined whether he is entitled to be granted compassionate allowance considering his long service in the Railways.

While upholding the action taken by the Department against the petitioner dismissing him from service, we deem it appropriate to direct the authorities to consider the request, if any, made by the petitioner for grant of compassionate allowance, in case he is eligible for such allowance. With these observations, the Original Petition is disposed of. No costs.