Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Ch Uma Mahaeswara Rao vs Ordnance Factory on 11 April, 2025
1
OA.No.300/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.021/00300/2022
ORDER RESERVED ON 25.02.2025
DATE OF ORDER: 11.04.2025
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Ch.Uma Maheswara Rao
S/o late Veerabhadra Rao
Aged about 58 years, Gr. 'C'
Ex. Chargeman, Gr.I/Tech. Per.No.91847-9
H.No.2-2/7, F.C.I. Colony
Miyapur, Hyderabad-500 049. .....Applicant
(By Advocate Sri K.Ram Murthy)
Vs.
1. Union of India
Represented by its Secretary
Department of Defence Production and Supplies
Ministry of Defence
New Delhi.
2. Director General
Directorate of Ordnance
(Coordination & Services), S.K.Bose Road
Kolkatta - 700001.
3. Additional Director General (C&S)/CMD/AVNL
Armoured Vehicles Nigam Limited
Avadi, Chennai-600 054.
4. The General Manager
Ordnance Factory, Medak
A Unit of Defence PSU, Armoured Vehicles
Nigam Limited (AVNL)
Yeddumailaram P.O.
Sangareddy Dist., TS-502 205. ....Respondents
(By Advocate Smt. B.Gayatri Varma, Sr.CGSC)
*******
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING,
PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=
NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD,
Phone=
PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa
a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=
PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
SANDHYA
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 20:15:31+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2
OA.No.300/2022
ORDER
PER: HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
".... to call for the all records pertaining to the Impugned Order No.15/1004/VLC/LEGAL/CUM2020, Date: 26.12.2020 of the 4th Respondent and holding them as arbitrary, illegal and violation of Article 14, 16, 21 and rules made under proviso of Article 309 of the Constitution of India and also against principles of natural justice and quash or set aside the same and to issue a consequential direction to the 2nd Respondent to grant Compassionate Allowance with effect from the date of removal from service under the relevant Rules, instructions and guidelines in force in the interest of justice and humbly requests to pass such other orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows:
i. The applicant joined service in the year 1986 and rendered satisfactory service for 21 years, before the termination order was passed by the 3rd Respondent, vide Order No.16074/A/DISC/43/05, dt.07.12.2007, and conveyed on 24.04.2009 by the 4th Respondent. Aggrieved, the applicant submitted an appeal, but the same was rejected, vide Order No.22(2-A)/2012/D/Estt/NG, dated 19.11.2014. The Applicant had earlier filed OA.No.51 of 2011 and the same was disposed of by order, dt.25.11.2012. The applicant does not have any other source of income and is in penury, even after working continuously for 21 years, for a vital defence production unit. He claims to be a deserving candidate for grant of Compassionate Allowance as he does not have a house to live in and is starving for Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 20:15:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 OA.No.300/2022 food and cannot even buy medicines. No case is pending before any court of law against him. He is not doing any work due to his ailment. An ex-parte enquiry was conducted and he was removed from service. Removed or dismissed employees are eligible for compassionate allowance, under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The applicant preferred a representation on 29.09.2020, for grant of Compassionate Allowance from the date of his removal from service. The same was rejected on flimsy grounds by the 4th Respondent, who despite not being competent, by overstepping his authority, rejected the representation, instead of forwarding the same to the 2nd Respondent, who is the Competent Authority to take decision in the matter. In the instant case, the 2nd Respondent had removed him from service and only he has got the power to grant Compassionate Allowance, in terms of Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has filed the present OA.
3. The grounds raised by the applicant while seeking relief, include the following:
i. The authority who dismissed or removed him from service can consider his request for Compassionate Allowance, in terms of Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and, hence, the impugned order by R4 is illegal and against the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 and 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
ii. The following case laws have been referred to:
a. WP(C) No.2139 of 2012 and CM Nos.4630 of 2012 and 5719 of 2012 of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ex-Sub Parasram vs. Union of India and others, the Hon'ble High Court directed the Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 20:15:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 OA.No.300/2022 Respondents to 'grant the petitioner compassionate allowance as per Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules. Requisite communication in this regard along with release of the allowance amounts from the date of filing of the writ petition shall be communicated to the petitioner within two months from the date of this order.' b. OA.No.1312 of 2014, dated 03.03.2015, of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, New Delhi, in case of Sri Ramchander vs. Commissioner of Police & others.
c. Civil Appeal No.1821 of 2014 (arising out of SLP(C).No.24870 of 2013) in the case of Laxman Chandra Sarkar vs. Union of India and others.
4. On notice, Respondents have put in appearance through their Counsel and filed a written reply stating that -
i. According to them, the instant application is barred by limitation in terms of Section 21(1) (a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, inasmuch as the applicant herein had filed the instant OA on 28.04.2022, challenging the Speaking Order, dt.26.12.2020, issued by Respondent No.4. The applicant ought to proceed before this Tribunal within one year from the date of issuance of the said Speaking Order. The applicant has not even preferred an application for condonation of delay for not filing the instant application in time. ii. In this context, Respondents rely on the judgment in the case of Secretary to Govt. of India & ors. Vs. Shivram Mahadu Gaikwad, 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 231, in which the Apex Court had held that "CAT cannot entertain an application barred by limitation". The Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 20:15:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 OA.No.300/2022 Apex Court further reiterated their decision in the matter vide 1996 (6) SCC (L&S) 1488 as well as in the matter of Ramesh Chand Sharma vs. Udham Singh Kamal & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.3119 of 1997. iii. It is submitted that, Shri Ch.Uma Maheswar Rao, the applicant herein, while working as Chargeman Gr.I, in the 4th Respondent factory, was issued a memorandum of charges under Rule-14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, for gross misconduct, viz. - unauthorized absence from duty (a) from 10.02.2005 to 20.10.2005 for 253 days, and (b) continuously from 08.02.2006 onwards and conduct unbecoming of a government servant, in violation of Rule 3(I)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
iv. The memorandum of charges, dated 08.09.2006, was forwarded to the charged official, but it was returned to the Ordnance Factory, Medak, undelivered by the postal authorities. Therefore, a Court of Enquiry was ordered, vide order, dt.02.11.2006. Copies of the enquiry order were also forwarded to the applicant at the recorded addresses. These communications were also returned undelivered by the postal authorities, with the remarks that "Addressee left and returned to the sender".
v. As the communications sent to the applicant had been returned undelivered, a paper notification was issued through the DAVP (Direcorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity), New Delhi, in leading news papers in Telugu and English, regarding initiation of disciplinary proceedings and communications sent to that effect and the letters having been returned undelivered by the postal authorities. Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 20:15:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 OA.No.300/2022 Further, it was also directed vide the notification, dt.26.03.2007, to attend the Court of Enquiry proceedings within 15 days from the date of publication of the notification, failing which, the Court of Enquiry will be conducted ex-parte and appropriate disciplinary action will be taken by the Disciplinary Authority.
vi. Even after publication of the notification issued by the Respondents, the applicant did not participate in the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry authority concluded the proceedings ex-parte and submitted his enquiry report on 07.09.2007. A copy of the enquiry report was forwarded to the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB for short), the then Disciplinary Authority, for necessary action. Thereafter, a copy of the enquiry report was forwarded to the applicant, vide letter, dt. 24.10.2007, for making his representation or submissions, if any, giving him 15 days' time. The said communication was also returned undelivered by the postal authorities, with a remark that, "no such addressee returned to sender". Thereafter, the then Disciplinary Authority, vide order No.16074/A/DISC/43/05, dt.07.12.2007, imposed the penalty of removal from service on Shri Ch.Umamaheswara Rao, the applicant.
vii. A copy of the removal order was again forwarded to the applicant, vide letter, dt.17.12.2007, but this communication was also returned undelivered by the postal authorities with the remarks - 'no such addressee'. Later, the applicant, vide his representation, dt.24.04.2009, to the 4th Respondent, requested for issue of a copy of the penalty order for "further proceedings". Copies of all the relevant documents Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 20:15:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 OA.No.300/2022 pertaining to the enquiry were given to him, by hand, vide letter, dt.24.04.2009, which was acknowledged by him. On receipt of the same, the applicant filed OA.No.51 of 2012 before this Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order, dt.25.04.2012, disposed of the OA, with a direction to the Respondents to treat the appeal filed by the applicant before the 2nd Respondent, as the appeal filed before the appropriate authority, who shall dispose of the same. Accordingly, the appeal, submitted by the applicant, was disposed of, vide order, dt.19.11.2014.
viii. After a lapse of nearly six years from the date of disposal of the appeal, the applicant submitted a representation, dt.29.09.2020, for grant of Compassionate Allowance. The same was rejected by the Respondents by issuing an elaborate and reasoned speaking order, dt.26.12.2020. Again, after a lapse of 1 year and 4 months, the applicant filed this OA before the Tribunal, challenging the speaking order, dt.26.12.2020. It was prayed by the Respondents that the OA may be dismissed as time-barred.
ix. As argued by the Respondents, grant of compassionate allowance is governed by Rule 41 of the Pension Rules and it is not a matter of right, but, an exception, which can be considered, by exercising due discretion. Merely putting in 21 years of service is of no consequence for grant of compassionate allowance. What is important is unblemished service record of the employee. The applicant was earlier imposed a penalty of reduction of pay to the minimum of the scale at Rs.5,500/- in the time scale of Rs.5,500-9,000/- for a period of two Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 20:15:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 OA.No.300/2022 years for gross misconduct, viz., (i) he was habitually irregular in attendance during the period from 25.01.2001 to 10.01.2002 by remaining unauthorisedly absent from duty during the period for as many 59 days in several spells on 30 occasions, (ii) he was unauthorisedly absent from duty continuously from 08.05.2002 till the issue of the memorandum, and, (iii) he disobeyed the instructions of his superiors and failed to perform the duties assigned to him and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, which showed conduct unbecoming of a Government servant, in violation of Rule 3(1)(i)(ii) & (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. x. On considering the past penalties and the service record of the applicant, the competent authority decided that it is not a fit case for granting compassionate allowance and disposed of the representation, dt.29.09.2020, vide a speaking order, dt.26.12.2020. Further, the competent authority also considered his lack of integrity in failing to pay back the House Building Advance (HBA) dues to the government. xi. The employee should have updated his addresses in the service records at the time of change in the permanent address or the temporary address, which the applicant failed to do. Thereby, the enquiry proceedings were conducted ex-parte. Respondents claim that they have followed the principles of natural justice and the due procedure for conducting the inquiry proceedings before issue of the penalty order.
xii. Respondents have submitted that the applicant has falsely pleaded that he has no house to live. While working in the 4th Respondent factory, Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 20:15:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 OA.No.300/2022 the applicant had obtained HBA of Rs.3,00,000/- from the factory in order to refund the loan taken from the LIC Housing Finance Ltd., towards purchase of a flat at Hyderabad. An amount of Rs.1,48,000/- was recovered from his pay, before his removal from service. The balance amount of Rs.1,52,000/-, together with interest, was to be paid by the applicant to Respondent No.4. The 4th Respondent filed a Civil Suit, vide No.66 of 2012, before the Hon'ble Sr.Civil Judge at Sangareddy, who, vide order, dt.20.12.2016, issued a decree in favour of the Department.
xiii. It is also submitted that, after a lapse of 13 years from the date of his removal from service, the applicant submitted a representation, dt.29.09.2020, with a request for grant of compassionate allowance. The very fact that the applicant, could sustain himself for 13 years, after his removal from service, and made his representation after 13 years, seeking Compassionate Allowance, defeats the very principle of its grant, to use it only in exceptional circumstances. xiv. It is further submitted that, as per the then existing orders of the OFB Circular No.3977/BM/Per/DISC, dt.03.12.2018, as provided for in the Gazette of India notification No.GSR 1115(E), dt.13.11.2018, the General Manager is the Competent Disciplinary Authority, for employees in Group 'B' Non-Gazetted posts under the Ordnance Factories and, hence, the General Manager, Ordnance Factory Medak, rightly disposed of the representation of the applicant, dt.29.09.2020. The contention of the applicant, challenging the competence of the G.M./R-4, is baseless and liable to be dismissed. Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 20:15:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 OA.No.300/2022 xv. It is argued by the Respondents that, as per the laid down procedure, prior sanction of the competent leave sanctioning authority is to be taken and, in extreme cases, on medical grounds, it is the responsibility of the government servant to keep the concerned authority informed by forwarding the 'unfit' medical certificate, in the first instance, as official intimation to the department. Respondent No.4 factory had duly circulated Factory Order No.137 Part-I, dt.19.07.1996, wherein the procedure for availing leave on medical grounds had been laid down. According to it, the applicant should have forwarded the 'unfit' certificate from time to time and fit certificate at the time of reporting to duty, which was not done by the applicant.
xvi. The applicant had been provided with reasonable opportunity to participate in the inquiry to prove that his absence was due to sickness and also given the opportunity to mend himself, which he failed to do. xvii. While considering the application of the applicant for sanction of compassionate allowance, the Competent Authority has taken the view that poverty is not an essential condition precedent to the grant of compassionate allowance. Considering his misconduct, reflecting disloyalty to his duty and the organisation which was unpardonable, it tantamounts to dishonesty towards his duties and lack of integrity in respect of payment of HBA dues to the government. Hence, the contentions of the applicant are not acceptable. Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 20:15:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 OA.No.300/2022 xviii. The following case laws are relied upon by the Respondents to support their arguments that unauthorised absence constitutes grave misconduct :-
a. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of North Eastern Karnataka R.T.Corp. vs. Ashappa, in Civil Appeal No.2637 of 2006, had held that -
"Overstaying on leave or unauthorised absenteeism from the workplace enables the employer to dismiss an employee as it amounts to serious misconduct. Remaining absent for a long time, in our opinion, cannot be said to be a minor misconduct." b. In Hombe Gowda Educational Trust and another vs. State of Karnataka and others [(2006) 1 SCC 430], the Apex Court had opined that -
"A person, when dismissed from services, is put to a great hardship but that would not mean that a grave misconduct should go unpunished. Although the doctrine of proportionality may be applicable in such matters, but a punishment of dismissal from service for such a misconduct cannot be said to be unheard of. Maintenance of discipline of an institution is equally important." xix. Respondents have prayed to dismiss the Original Application on the following grounds:
a. That the OA is barred by limitation.
b. That on considering the past penalties and blemished record of service, the Competent Authority, vide letter, dated 26.12.2020, decided that the applicant's case is not a fit case for granting compassionate allowance.
c. That the applicant is a defaulter in the case of House Building Advance, taken from the 4th Respondent. Despite his assurance, he Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 20:15:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 OA.No.300/2022 had not paid back the loan, which amounts to misleading the government.
d. That the applicant is a habitual offender resorting to unauthorised absence. Earlier also, he had been penalised for the same. e. It is also submitted that, in normal circumstances, when a government servant is removed or dismissed from service, he forfeits his past service, including pension and gratuity, but it is only by way of an exception that a provision is added in Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which states that the Competent Authority may, if the case is deserving of special consideration, sanction compassionate allowance.
f. That the 'Guiding Principles for Grant of Compassionate Allowance', formulated by the Govt. of India in OM, dt.22.04.1940, for applying Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, are reproduced below:
(1) Guiding principles for the grant of Compassionate Allowance. - It is practically impossible in view of the wide variations that naturally exist in the circumstances attending each case, to lay down categorically precise principles that can uniformly be applied to individual cases. Each case has, therefore, to be considered on its merits and a conclusion has to be reached on the question whether there were any such extenuating features in the case as would make the punishment awarded, though it may have been necessary in the interests of Government, unduly hard on the individual. In considering this question it has been the practice to take into account not only the actual misconduct or course of misconduct which occasioned the dismissal or removal of the officer, but also the kind of service he has rendered. Where the course of misconduct carries with it the legitimate inference that the officer's service has been dishonest, there can seldom be any good case for a compassionate allowance. Poverty is not an essential condition precedent to the grant of a compassionate allowance, but special regard is also occasionally paid to the fact that the officer has a wife and children dependent upon Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 20:15:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 13 OA.No.300/2022 him, though this factor by itself is not, except perhaps in the most exceptional circumstances, sufficient for the grant of a compassionate allowance. (emphasis added) g. According to the Respondents, the request of the applicant is an afterthought. If such a contention is allowed, employees will not bother to maintain discipline or follow rules, because they would think that ultimately, even if they are dismissed, they can always claim compassionate allowance.
xx. Respondents have requested to dismiss the OA as devoid of merits.
5. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the material on record.
6. Smt.B.Gayatri Varma, Learned Sr.CGSC for the Respondents, submits that the applicant was removed from service in the year 2007 and he has come up with this OA in the year 2022 and, hence, it is time-barred. Along with the rules governing sanction of compassionate allowance, she has also tendered a copy of order, dt.03.01.2024, in MA.No.446/2023, in OASR.No.1238/2023 & MA.No.447/2023, wherein this Tribunal had dismissed the application on the ground of limitation by observing that -
"4. On the point of limitation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. T.T.Murali Babu, reported in 2014 (4) SCC 108, held as under:-
"16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 20:15:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 14 OA.No.300/2022 who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. ....."
5.Further, in the case of Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by Lrs Vs. State of A.P. & Ors. [2011 4 SCC 363] decided on 24.02.2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"...The concepts such as "liberal approach", "justice oriented approach", "substantial justice" cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation. Especially, in cases where the Court concludes that there is no justification for the delay."
6. In view of Section 21 of A.T.Act, 1985 and the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this application is barred by limitation as the applicants have approached this Tribunal after 5 years 7 months and 1 day and no cogent reasons have been given for condoning the day. Accordingly, MA/446/2023 in OASR/1238/2023 (condonation of delay) and MA/447/2023 are stand dismissed."
In the present case, no petition has been filed explaining or justifying the delay in approaching this Tribunal. Even the request for Compassionate Allowance had been made in the year 2020, though the applicant had been removed from service in the year 2007.
7. According to the learned Sr.CGSC, removal of the applicant was the result of his unauthorised absence for very long duration. She has also argued that the applicant has certain dues to repay towards HBA which he had taken from the department and which has led to filing of Civil Suit by the Department, which is highlighted at para 13 of the reply, as follows :-
"13. ...... After his removal from service, the applicant, vide letter, dt.09.03.2009, had given his consent to repay the amount due by 7th April, 2009, however, he did not paid the dues. The 4th Respondent filed Civil Suit No. 66 of 2012 before the Hon'ble Court at Sangareddy. The Honourable Court, vide order, dt.20.12.2016, issued decree and held that 'in the result, the suit filed by the plaintiff is preliminarily decreed for an amount of Rs.4,85,113/- with future interest @ 12% per annum over the balance of the principal amount due to a tune of Rs.1,52,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of realisation and in the circumstances with costs. Time for redemption is 3 months." Even after passing of the decree in favour of the 4th Respondent, govt. money is still pending for recovery from the applicant. As Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 20:15:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 15 OA.No.300/2022 there is no response from the applicant regarding payment of HBA dues, the 4th Respondent requested the District Administrative Authorities to take necessary action to recover the dues of Rs.4,85,113/- from the applicant and the matter is pending with the District Administrative Authorities."
The balance amount is yet to be realised from the Applicant.
8. She has also referred to the instructions received by her from the department, vide letter, dt.05.02.2025, and, as per para-16 therein, the case of the applicant, does not deserve special consideration nor his financial status is such which makes him eligible for compassionate allowance. It is stated that-
"16.The Hon'ble High Court in WP No.16085 of 2022 at para 10 clearly mentioned that "the only factor which has to be looked into before granting compassionate allowance is whether the case of the Respondents falls under 'deserving of special consideration' or not and the financial status is one of the deserving factors which has to be examined."
9. The Applicant's stand is that he has not challenged his removal. He has mainly taken shelter under Rule-41 of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972, for his survival. According to the learned counsel for the Applicant, this Court had already considered a similar case, in OA.No.32/2021, K.Yadaiah vs.UOI, wherein, this Tribunal has observed as follows:-
"II. In the impugned order issued by the Respondents, the Respondents stated the earlier penalties imposed on the applicant viz., censure and reduction of pay for habitual irregular attendance and unauthorised absence and despite the penalties imposed, the applicant did not change. Though the applicant was imposed with the above penalties, he was allowed to continue to work. It would thus mean that he has been made to suffer for his follies. Besides, on grounds of poor health, an unforeseen factor not in his control, applicant could not attend to official duties. However, for unauthorised absence, he was proceeded under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules and imposed the penalty of removal. Un- authorized absence for factors beyond the control of the employee like ill-health is obviously is not wilful and cannot be construed as misconduct as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Krushnakanth B Parmar and another Vs. Union of India reported in (2012) 3 SCC
178......
x x x x x x x III. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahinder Dutt Sharma vs U.O.I & Ors on 11 April, 2014 in Civil Appeal No.2111 of 2009 [(2014) 11 Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 20:15:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 16 OA.No.300/2022 SCC 654] observed that compassionate allowance can be granted provided certain conditions are satisfied, .......
x x x x x x
14. While evaluating the claim of a dismissed (or removed from service) employee, for the grant of compassionate allowance, the rule postulates a window for hope, "...if the case is deserving of special consideration...". Where the delinquency leading to punishment, falls in one of the five classifications delineated in the foregoing paragraph, it would ordinarily disentitle an employee from such compassionate consideration. An employee who falls in any of the above five categories, would therefore ordinarily not be a deserving employee, for the grant of compassionate allowance. In a situation like this, the deserving special consideration, will have to be momentous. ......where the delinquency levelled and proved against the punished employee, does not fall in the realm of misdemeanour illustratively categorized in the foregoing paragraph, it would be easier than otherwise, to extend such benefit to the punished employee, of course, subject to availability of factors of compassionate consideration.
x x x x x x
17. ......By applying the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the applicant, unauthorised absence cannot be construed as grave misconduct. Hence, on this ground, there is scope to consider the case of the applicant for grant of compassionate allowance. Besides, the implication of the charge having held to be proved would demonstrate that the applicant could not join duty for reasons of health, which are beyond his control........ (emphasis added) The Hon'ble High Court in WP.No.16085/2022, has upheld the order of the Tribunal in the case of K.K.Yadaiah. Facts, on which the judgments relied upon by the Tribunal were based, are totally different. In the case of Mahinder Dutt Sharma, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to the good entries and commendation certificates/cards awarded to the appellant, while allowing the prayer for compassionate allowance. In another case, the applicant could not join duty for reasons of health. No such extenuating circumstances are seen in the present case. The applicant herein, however, failed to prove his sickness as, even at the time consideration of his appeal Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 20:15:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 17 OA.No.300/2022 by the Hon'ble President of India, even though he was given a fresh opportunity, he failed to furnish any medical certificate or prescription to justify his long absence.
10. The following significant facts, in this case, stand out -
i. The OA is not maintainable as it is barred by the law of limitation.
OASR/1238/2023 was dismissed by this Tribunal, on 03.02.2024, on this very ground vide its order supra. The applicant or his counsel did not move any application with the prayer to condone the delay. ii. The department secured a decree in the Civil Suit from the Hon'ble Dist. Civil Court, Sangareddy. As per the calculation made upto August, 2024, an amount of Rs.6,24,953/- is due from the applicant. Since the individual has still failed to repay the Govt. dues, the department has taken up the matter with the Dist. Authorities for recovery of the said dues from the individual. iii. It is further informed that, on enquiry, the said property, against which the HBA was granted, i.e., Flat No.3, Amrit Apartments, Stilt Floor, Sy.No.298/1, 229/1 & 303-1 at Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, and was mortgaged to the Hon'ble President of India by the individual, was disposed of by him dishonestly, without clearing the govt. dues. This shows total lack of integrity on the part of the individual since he has cheated the government by disposing of the property mortgaged to it. This tantamounts to moral turpitude, as argued by the Respondents. iv. After a lapse of 13 years from the date of removal from service, the applicant submitted a representation for grant of compassionate Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 20:15:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 18 OA.No.300/2022 allowance. The very fact that the applicant could sustain himself for 13 years, despite his removal from service, w.e.f. 07.12.2007, means this is not an exceptional case of penury or indigence.
v. The applicant has been habitually indulging in irregular attendance and absence. He was penalised on earlier occasions also but proved to be incorrigible. Hence, having such a bad record of service, he does not deserve consideration for grant of compassionate allowance. vi. The Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in WP No.16085 of 2022 considered the case of Shri K.Yadaiah, on its merits, but the facts are different in this case. The Hon'ble High Court, at para 10 of the judgment, clearly mentioned that -
" ..The only factor which has to be looked into before granting compassionate allowance is whether the case of the Respondents falls under 'deserving of special consideration' or not and the financial status is one of the deserving factors which has to be examined."
The case of applicant herein does not fall under the category 'deserving of special consideration'. He acquired his own flat at Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, and, as per the available records with the department, his residential address is MIG 2272, BHEL Township, Hyderabad. From the above, it can be safely inferred that the applicant's financial status is quite good.
11. Being an officer in Group-B (Non-Gazetted), the applicant is expected to be conversant with the rules of conduct and follow them sincerely and not indulge in misconduct of unauthorised absence repeatedly. However, his Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 20:15:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 19 OA.No.300/2022 track record shows him to be ignoring this basic rule of discipline and failing to maintain regular attendance for attending to duties, though he was employed in an Ordnance Factory under the Ministry of Defence. We have seen in the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court supra that compassionate allowance has been granted to employees after removal/dismissal because of good record of service or their absence from duty for reasons of health, which are beyond their control. In the present case, the unauthorised absence has not been justified by the Applicant by submission of medical certificate for the period in question. Besides the work place, he was also found to be missing from his place of residence recorded in his service records, because of which even official communication regarding disciplinary proceedings came back repeatedly as the Postal Department could not locate him. Even the penalty order, dt.17.12.2007, was received back undelivered. He did not appear for the Court of Enquiry despite notification in leading local newspapers through the DAVP. He secured a copy of the penalty order and other relevant documents by submitting a request, much later, on 24.04.2009.
12. He submitted an appeal, dt.01.06.2009, which was considered as per the directions of this Tribunal, in OA.No.51/2012. Even, at that time, the Ministry of Defence gave him an opportunity to furnish medical certificates. Though the letter, dt.10.04.2013, in this regard, was delivered to him on 16.04.2013, as confirmed by the Postal Authorities, he did not respond to this direction. Finally, the case was put up to the Appellate Authority, namely, the President of India, who came to the conclusion that there is no Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 20:15:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 20 OA.No.300/2022 merit in the appeal warranting any interference and the appeal of Sri Ch.Uma Maheshwara Rao, Ex-CM-I, was rejected on the ground of being devoid of merit.
13. Another major aspect of this case is that, not only has the applicant failed to repay the House Building Advance, in full, despite giving an undertaking to that effect and the decree of the Civil Court, he has gone ahead to dispose of the property acquired with govt. loan, without the permission of the department, and, now, the matter of recovery is pending with the District Authorities on being referred to them by the respondent department. As per the last calculation, the amount due from the applicant, in August, 2014, stood at Rs.6,24,953/-.
14. It is clear that the applicant has displayed most indisciplined conduct, and has been totally lacking any devotion to duty as well as integrity, as illustrated by the facts above. He approached the concerned authority after 16 months of the issue of punishment order, dt.07.12.2007, through his letter, dt.24.02.2009, for supply of a copy of the penalty order. His appeal was considered on the directions of this Tribunal in OA.No.51/2012, and rejected by the Appellate Authority, the Hon'ble President of India, through a reasoned and speaking order, dt.19.11.2014.
15. It is worth noting that the request for grant of compassionate allowance was submitted through his application, dt.29.09.2020, along with prayer to reinstate him into service with all consequential benefits or, at least, consider him for compassionate allowance from the date of his removal from service. Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 20:15:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 21 OA.No.300/2022 This representation was rejected through a detailed and speaking order, dt.26.12.2020, which is impugned in the present OA. However, as we have seen above, the request is not only time-barred, the applicant has also been continuously ignoring the directions of the concerned authorities for furnishing medical certificates regarding the sickness pleaded by him. He has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands as he has violated the conditions of House Building Advance sanctioned by the Government to him and made the department run from pillar to post for recovery of dues from him which are still pending.
16. Thus, the applicant fails vis-a-vis the grounds set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to disentitle a dismissed/removed employee from receiving Compassionate Allowance. These grounds include dishonesty towards the employer, acts designed for personal gains, moral turpitude, wicked and treacherous acts which lead to disqualification for consideration for sanction of compassionate allowance, as listed prominently in the judgment in the case of Mahinder Dutt Sharma vs. UOI & Ors., and relied upon in the OA filed by K.Yadaiah. It is clear that the applicant has shown dishonest behaviour even after his removal from service.
17. The OA is, therefore, dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) Administrative Member 11.04.2025 /ps/ Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.04.30 20:15:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0