Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
S Panigrahi vs M/O Railways on 9 December, 2024
1 O.A.No. 260/00212/2019 & 46/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00212 of 2019
with
OA No. 260/00046/2020
Reserved on 03.12.2024 Pronounced on 09.12.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Smt Swarnalata Panigrahi, aged about 44 years,
W/o. Late Gouranga Kumar Panigrahi, AT/PO.-
Bishnupur, Dist.-Balasore, Odisha 756051.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the General Manager, South
Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata- 700043.
2. The Chief Personnel Officer, S. E. Railway, Garden
Reach, Kolkata-700043.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager, S.E, Railway,
Kharagpur. PO.Kharagpur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur,
West Bengal. 721301.
4. The Sr. Divisional Operations Manager, S.E. Railway,
Kharagpur, PO.Kharagpur, District- Paschim
Medinipur, West Bengal 721301.
2 O.A.No. 260/00212/2019 & 46/2020
5. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, S.E. Railway,
Kharagpur, PO.Kharagpur, District Paschim
Medinipur, West Bengal. 781301.
6. The Divisional Operations Manager, S.E. Railway,
Kharagpur, PO. Kharagpur, District Paschim
Medinipur, West Bengal 721301.
7. The Assistant Operations Manager (G), S.E.Railway,
Kharagpur, PO.Kharagpur, District Paschim
Medinipur, West Bengal 721301.
8. Sri Bhagabat Das, Inquiry Officer and DTI, Balasore
Railway Station, S.E.Railway, At/Po-Balasore, Odisha
PIN 756001.
(Common Respondents in both the OAs)
9. Sri R.N.Behera, Station Manager, Bahanaga Bazar
Railway Station, At/Po-Bahanaga, Dist. Balasore,
Odisha, PIN 756042.
(Additional Respondent in OA 46/2020 only)
For the applicant : C.Jena, Counsel in both the OAs
For the respondents : R.K.Mahapatra, Counsel(In OA 212/19)
A.K.Sahu, Counsel(In OA 46/20)
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
Since both the OA Nos. 260/00212 of 2019 and 260/00046/2020 have been filed by the same applicant and the prayer made in OA No. 46/2020 is interlined, intertwined and 3 O.A.No. 260/00212/2019 & 46/2020 related with the facts and issues of OA No. 212/2019, we feel it appropriate to pass this common order, which will govern both the OAs.
2. The applicant is a resident of Bisnupur, Dist. Balasore, Odisha and widow of Late G.K.Panigrahi, who while working as Points Man-
"A" BNBR under SMR/BNBR having received a punishment notice No. GM/57/Staff/D&A/16/GKP/26 dated 19.01.2017 for removal from service at the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 9 of RS (D&A) Rules, 1968 vide charge sheet dated 07.10.2016, preferred appeal dated 24.01.2017 and while the matter stood thus he expired on 02.03.2017. Thereafter, the applicant preferred appeal/ representation/revision for granting her arrear salary of her husband, pension, pensionary dues and to provide appointment to her. Thereafter, alleging inaction in giving consideration to her request, she preferred OA No. 553/2018 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of vide order dated 20.12.2018 with direction to consider the pending representation/revision.
Respondents considered and rejected the representation/revision vide order dated 12.02.2019. Being aggrieved, she has approached 4 O.A.No. 260/00212/2019 & 46/2020 this Tribunal in this OA No. 212/2019 seeking direction to the respondents to release withheld arrear pay of her husband and family pension and other pensionary dues in her favour by quashing the charge sheet dated 07.10.2016, report of the IO dated 28.11.2016 and punishment notice No. GM/57/Staff/D&A/16/GKP/26 dated 19.01.2017 and order No. GM/57/Staff/D&A/SF-5/16/GKP dated 12.02.2019.
2. Ld. Counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that although there was no valid order of removal, the husband of the applicant was forcefully kept away from duty. The husband of the applicant had preferred appeal but during pendency of the appeal he expired on 02.03.2017. At no point of time, the order dated 01.03.2017, alleged to have been issued on the appeal, has been served upon her husband till his death on 02.03.2017. However, from the order passed on the representation/revision preferred by the applicant, after the death of her husband, she came to know that such an order rejecting the appeal has been passed. Ld. Counsel for the applicant straight away took us to the punishment notice No. GM/57/Staff/D&A/16/GKP/26 dated 19.01.2017 to substantiate 5 O.A.No. 260/00212/2019 & 46/2020 that the said notice was never finalized and that cannot be treated to be an order of removal in the eye of law. However, as stated in the said notice, the husband of the applicant preferred appeal but the Appellate Authority without due application of mind, rejected the same treating the punishment notice dated 19.01.2017 as an order of punishment of removal from service. To make the matter clear, it has been stated that in the said punishment notice, the Disciplinary Authority held that "it is decided to remove you from railway service with effect from 20.01.2017 by sanctioning of 2/3 pensionary benefits as per extent rules as a measure of punishment". But, after the order, no such order removing the applicant's husband had ever been issued, which factum is also fortified by the order of the Appellate Authority dated 01.03.2017. Hence, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has vociferously tried to persuade this Tribunal for grant of the relief claimed in this OA.
3. The respondents filed the counter inter alia stating that the allegation leveled against the husband of the applicant was serious in nature. On receipt of the charge sheet, the husband of the applicant submitted his reply and the matter was duly inquired into by giving 6 O.A.No. 260/00212/2019 & 46/2020 due opportunity to him. The applicant's husband admitted his guilt and prayed excuse. However, the DA upon consideration of all the facts of the matter and taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, imposed the punishment of removal from service by sanctioning 2/3 pensionary benefits as per extent rules. The husband of the applicant submitted appeal and the AA after considering the entire matter, rejected the same and communicated his decision vide order dated 01.03.2017. Thereafter, the revision petition filed by the present applicant is not entertainable. However, in compliance of the order of this Tribunal, the representation/revision was duly considered and rejected vide letter dated 12.02.2019, which was duly communicated to her. Ld Counsel for the respondents also highlighting the aforesaid fact in course of hearing has submitted that judicial interference in the matter of disciplinary proceedings is no more res integra. The allegation against the husband of the applicant was serious in nature, which he had also admitted during proceedings. The proceeding was initiated and concluded strictly in accordance with rules and with due compliance of principles of natural justice. He has also denied the stand taken by the Ld. Counsel 7 O.A.No. 260/00212/2019 & 46/2020 for the applicant that the punishment notice cannot be treated as an order of punishment and, therefore, it should have been followed by another order. Accordingly, it has been stated that since there has been no infraction or violation of the rules and principles of natural justice, this OA is liable to be dismissed.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant has filed written note of submission on 03.12.2024 giving copy to the other side inter alia stating as under:
A) IRREGULARITIES IN THE PROCEEDINGS:-
i) The applicant was not informed of about the date of inquiry against the charge Memo dated 07.10.2016 issued by the AOM(G)/KGP as in the letter GM/57/Staff/D&A/SF5/16/GKP Dated 21.11.16 (Annexure A/10) there is no reference of the said Charge Memo of AOM(G)/KGP. Further, the said letter is a computer generated paper, prepared on 22.11.2016 but signed on 18.11.2016, which means it is a manufactured document and no such letter was earlier issued and served upon the CO before inquiry. Moreover, there is no date fixing the date of inquiry by the IO. So, the CO was not well informed of the date of inquiry which is irregular and denial of natural justice.
ii) As per "Master Circular No.65", para No.15-A preliminary hearing should invariably be held first after giving due notice as specified in Rule 9(11).Formal notice have to be sent to all concerned for all the regular hearings too. During the preliminary hearing, the charged official should be asked by the Inquiry Officer whether he has received the Charge Sheet, understood the charges against him and whether he accepts those charges.
8 O.A.No. 260/00212/2019 & 46/2020
In terms of Rule 11 of RS(D&A) Rules, 1968, the Railway servant shall appear in person before the inquiring authority on such day and such time within ten working days from the date of receipt by the inquiring authority of the order appointing him as such as the inquiry authority may by notice in writing specify in this behalf or within such further time not exceeding ten days, as the inquiring authority may allow.
In terms of Rule 9(14) of RS(D&A) Rules-After the nomination of the assisting Railway servant or the official of a Railway trade union and other necessary steps preliminary to the inquiry are completed, a date, ordinarily not exceeding one month from the date of appointment of the inquiry authority, shall be fixed for the inquiry and the Railway servant informed accordingly.
In the case of the applicant's husband no, preliminary hearing was held and he was not given opportunity for nominating Defense Assistant. So, the entire proceedings is illegal and it is liable to be quashed.
ⅲ) As per para 15, Sub-para (e) of Master Circular, During the inquiry, the evidence on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority has to be produced first, It would be incorrect to examine the charged official first, as this would be against the principles of natural justice. All the witnesses listed in the charge Memorandum have then to be examined one by one in the presence of the charged official. After examination of each prosecution witness, the charged official has to be given the opportunity to cross examine the witness.
In the case of the applicant's husband no letter appointing the Inquiry Officer was issued by the Disciplinary Authority and he was not informed of the appointment of the Inquiry Officer and date of inquiry as is evident from the Annexure A/10 of the OA Sri Bhagbat Das, Ch DTI/ BLS as 10 conducted inquiry on 28.11.16 in respect of Charge Sheet issued by the Sr DOM/KGP which was received by the husband of the applicant on 21.11.16 as is evident from the Answer to Question No.4, of the 10 to the CO in the statement (Annexure, A/12, page 38). The 10 recoded the statement of Sri R.N. Behera, 9 O.A.No. 260/00212/2019 & 46/2020 SMR/BNBR on 28.11.16, in respect of Charge Memo of AOM(G) KGP not in presence of the CO.
There is no preliminary inquiry in the case of the applicant which is a must. The AOM(G) KGP passed illegal punishment order being biased which is non-est in the eye of law.
B) ILLEGALITY IN THE FIDINGS OF THE IOS REPORT:-
i) As per Sub-para, (P) of Para No.15 in Master Circular, the inquiry report shall be prepared in accordance with Rule 9(25).It should contain a detailed analysis of the evidence taken on record during the inquiry with actual references to the deposition of the witness and the charged official and also documentary evidence. The findings in respect of each article of charge should be clear and categorical. It should be ensured that the inquiry report is based on detailed analysis of the evidence and findings in regard to the charge(s) are unambiguous. In this case the findings is not as per Rule 9(25) of the RS(D&A) Rules, 1968 and no analysis of the evidence in regard to the charge(s). Hence, it is liable to be quashed.
ii) The findings of the 10 is neither in respect of Charge Memo No.GM/57/Staff/D&A/SF-5/16/GKP Dt.21.11.16,nor in respect of Charge Memo No.GM/57/Staff/D&A/SF5/16/GKP Dated 07.10.2016 issued by the AOM(G) KGP nor in respect of Charge Memo No.GM/57/Staff/D&A/16/GKP Dated 07.10.16 issued by the Sr DOM/KGP, received by CO on 21.11.16. The so called Inquiry Report dated 28.11.16 is an unsigned paper and it has no value.
So, there is no Finding Report of the Inquiry Officer in respect of the Charge Memo No. GM/57/Staff/D&A/SF-5/16/GKP Dt.07.10.16 issued by the Disciplinary Authority and the punishment order is not on the basis of the findings of the IO and the proceedings in respect of Charge Sheet issued by the AOM(G)/KGP had not been completed before the death of the husband of the applicant. C) PUNISHMENT ORDER OF THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY IS NON-APPLICATION OF JUDUCIOUS MIND :-
10 O.A.No. 260/00212/2019 & 46/2020
As per para No.16 of Master Circular, when the Inquiry Officer submits the Inquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority, should first go through the report and inquiry proceedings to ascertain if the procedure has been followed and the inquiry report has been framed in accordance with Rule 9 (25). If any irregularity is noticed by the Disciplinary Authority, the case needs to be remitted back to the Inquiry Officer for further r inquiry. In this case the Inquiry Officer conducted inquiry without fixing the date of inquiry and on 28.011.16 conducted inquiry in respect of Charge Memo issued by the Sr DOM/KGP, and recoded the statement of the CO. Further, though IO conducted inquiry in respect of Charge Memo issued by AOM(G)/KGP and examined one. PW IN Charge Memo dated 07.10.2016 but not in presence of the CO.
As per Sub para (c) of para 16, once the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied that the inquiry has been held in accordance with the rules and the Inquiry Report has also been prepared properly, he should consider the case and arrive at a decision in regard to establishment of the charges.
Since, there is no inquiry report in respect of the Charge Memo issued by the AOM(G) KGP, the punishment order dated 19.01.17 is not based on any evidence on record and in absence of Inquiry Report. So, it is liable to be quashed.
D) ORDER OF SENIOR DIVISIONAL OPERATIONS MANAGER, KHARGPUR IS NON APPLICATION OF MIND:-
The applicant had filed representations before the Sr DOM/KGP and after an order of this Hon'ble Tribunal he has passed his order dated 12.02.2019 (ANNEXURE,A/20), and as per his order though he has admitted that the applicant has raised several questions in respect of the D&A inquiry but as per his opinion those are not acceptable. Further in his view, it is evident on record that principle of natural justice were strictly adhered to and all reasonable opportunities as per RS (D&A) Rules 1968 had been extended to the CO. The Sr DOM/KGP ought to have followed the 11 O.A.No. 260/00212/2019 & 46/2020 instruction mentioned in Sub-para (c) of para No.19 of RS (D&A) Rules. As has already been stated in the preceding paras as to how no Inquiry Officer was appointed and no inquiry in respect of Charge Memo issued by the AOM(G)/KGP was held in presence of the CO and no Inquiry Report was submitted but punishment order passed. The Sr DOM/KGP ought to have consider it had he applied his judicious mind. So, it is not a reasoned order and it is liable to be quashed.
E) DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS NOT COMPLETED AND IT IS ABATED :-
1-AOM(G)/KGP issued Charge Memo No.GM /57/Staff/D&A/SF5/16/ GKP Dated 07.10.2016 On 28.11.16 the IO recoded the statement of one of the witnesses, not in presence sence of the CO. The IO's Report is in respect of Charge Memo No GM/57/Staff/D&A/SF5/16/GKP Dated 21.11.16. So the, proceedings initiated by the AOM(G)/KGP is not completed and the CO expired on 02.03.17 before completion of proceedings. So, the proceedings is abated.
2-As per Statement of the CO, before the IO on 28.11.16 he had received the Charge Memo No.GM/57/ Staff/D&A/16/GKP Dated 07.10.16 issued by the Sr DOM/KGP which was countersigned by the SMR/BNBR on 21.11.16. No witness has been examined in that case and 10's report is not submitted and no order of punishment is issued by the Sr DOM/KGP in respect of his Charge Memo. So, D&A proceedings are not completed before the death of the CO. 14- PROCEEDINGS TO BE CLOSED IN THE EVENT OF DEATH OF THE CO:-
As per R.B.E. No.115 of 2000, in the event of death of the Railway servant against whom disciplinary proceeding is initiated and during the pendency of the proceedings the Railway servant dies then the disciplinary proceedings should be closed immediately. So, in the case of the applicant's husband the case initiated by the Railway Department should be closed and his death should be 12 O.A.No. 260/00212/2019 & 46/2020 treated as "Death while in service" and retrial benefits to be given to the Legal Heirs of the deceased.
It is the settled position of Law that the Departmental Disciplinary proceedings continues till the stage of disposal of the Review/Revision petition of the employee. In a similar matter in OA No.745/2019, Kavati Prasannakumari-vs-- The General Manager, Integral Coach Factory Chennai, while allowing the OA vide, order dated 23.04.2021 has held as follows:-
"para 20. In the instant case it has been admitted that appeal of late Jayarao was pending before the Appellate Authority against the punishment order at the time of his death and thus in view of Railway Board Circular dated 19.05.2000 and judgments of various courts this Tribunal is of the considered view that whole disciplinary proceedings shall abate and it will be deemed that no punishment was awarded against late Jayarao"
The aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Tribunal, has been uphold by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras vide order dated 27.09.2023 in W.P. No.26570 of 2021 and WMP No.28024 of 2021 The General Manager, Integral Coach Factory, Chennai. The Hon'ble High Court has held as follows:-
"7. It is seen that the Tribunal by following the judgments of the Supreme Court has categorically found that the appeal is a continuous of the proceedings and consequent to the death of the deceased, whole disciplinary proceedings shall stand abated and therefore, no punishment shall be awarded against late Jayarao .It is a settled law that the appeal is continuation of the proceedings and thus, the Tribunal has rightly abated the punishment against late Jayarao. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to the entire retrial benefits and also the family pension."13 O.A.No. 260/00212/2019 & 46/2020
As per "The Railway Servants Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1968, Rule 19 & 22 provides for filing of Appeal against the punishment order and Rule 25 provides for the Revision of the punishment and order of Appellate Authority. So, only after the order of the Revision Authority the disciplinary proceedings reaches its finality, not otherwise In the present case the applicant had preferred Appeal to the Appellate Authority and while his appeal was with the Appeal Authority the Appellant expired on 02.03.2017 As per 3(G) of Counter of the respondents the Appeal of the Appellant, the husband of the applicant, was considered by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 01.03.2017 but neither the order Number is mentioned nor filed with the Counter in support of the statement. So, it is not correct that Appellate Authority passed order on 01.03.2017.However, the so called order was not served upon the husband of the applicant and proceedings had not reached its finality and hence abated.
Further, as per Section 20(1) of "The Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, if departmental remedies are not exhausted the application shall not be accepted by the Central Administrative Tribunal. So, Revision/Review is the final stage of a Disciplinary Proceedings, as per railway Rules As the said proceedings had not reached its finality before the death of the applicant the said proceedings is abated.
15 DISMISSAL, REMOVAL OR REDUCING IN RANK OF A PERSON EMPLOYED IN CIVIL SERVICE UNDER THE UNION BY THE AUTHORITY OTHER THAN THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY IS ILLLEGAL:-
As per Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India, 'No person who is a member of a civil service of the union or all-India service or a civil service of a state or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed'.
In terms of R.B.E.No.119 of 2015, the penalties of dismissal, removal or Compulsory retirement from service should be imposed 14 O.A.No. 260/00212/2019 & 46/2020 on a Railway servant only by the highest of the following authorities viz. the authority which actually appointed the Railway Servant to the relevant grade or post or the authority which is empowered to make appointment to that grade or post at the time of imposition of penalty. (Copy supplied) The husband of the applicant was first appointed by the General Manager on ad-hoc basis 'and subsequently he was regularized and posted at KGP Division and posted as TP as regular manner and further promoted to the post ofTP 'A' vide, promotion order No.E/Optg/56/06 dated 05.04.2006 (Annexrure A/6) issued by the Sr Divisional Personnel Officer who is higher in rank in post than the AOM(G)/KGP. So, it is in violation of Rule 2(1)(a) of RS(D&A) Rules,1968 as well as Art.311(1) of Constitution of India So, the Punishment order of the AOM(G) KGP is illegal without jurisdiction and non est in the eye law and for that it should be quashed.
16- That in view of the facts stated in the preceding paras the proceedings initiated against the husband of the applicant was illegal and denial of natural justice, incomplete and the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority is without jurisdiction and order of punishment is non application of judicious mind, not based on evidence of record,so also, the order of the Sr DOM/KGP and for that the entire illegal disciplinary proceedings and Punishment order Dated 19.01.2017 of the Disciplinary Authority, the AOM(G)/KGP and the order dated 12.02.2019 of the Sr DOM/KGP are liable to be quashed and this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the entire D&A proceedings as well as Punishment orders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as Revision Authority.
4. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the materials placed on record.
5. We find that the applicant has placed much emphasis to decide as to whether the punishment notices No. GM/57/Staff/D&A/ 15 O.A.No. 260/00212/2019 & 46/2020 16/GKP/26 dated 19.01.2017 can be said to be an ex facie order of punishment or this is a notice, which should have been followed by a specific order of punishment. In this regard, we have minutely perused the punishment notice No. GM/57/Staff/D&A/16/GKP/26 dated 19.01.2017, the relevant portion of which is quoted below:
"Hence, it is decided to remove you from Railway Service w.e.f. 20.01.2017 by sanctioning of 2/3rd pensionary benefit (as per extent rule) as a measure of punishment.
Please acknowledge receipt of this notice. You are at liberty to prefer revision petition if any before the Appellate Authority (i.e. DOM- KGP) in polite language and within 45 days from date of receipt of this order."
(Emphasis added)
6. It is well settled principle that "to decide" implies "to make up once mind to do (or not to do) something". It is a situation to choose something, especially after thinking carefully about several possibilities. In the order it is stated that "it is decided". This phrase is in the present perfect tense, which indicates that the person has made the decision but has not necessarily acted on it yet. Therefore, on examination of the word used in the punishment notice No. GM/57/Staff/D&A/16/GKP/26 dated 19.01.2017, implies that the 16 O.A.No. 260/00212/2019 & 46/2020 husband of the applicant was not imposed with the punishment as decided therein, this is more fortified by the subsequent language used in the order that the husband of the applicant to acknowledge the "receipt of the notice" and "to prefer revision before the Appellate Authority" against the proposed action.
7. There can be no gainsaying that as per the rules the order of the DA must be self-sustaining one and ex facie order with no ambiguity insofar as imposition of punishment is concerned. We must hasten to clarify that the Government does not have a carte blanche to take any decision it chooses to; it cannot take a capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced decision. We are reminded by a celebrated decision titled Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr. (1978) 1 SCC 405 , of which the following paragraph deserves extraction:
"8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get 17 O.A.No. 260/00212/2019 & 46/2020 validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji AIR 1952 SC 16 .
'9. ... public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do.
Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.'
8. The respondents have stated that they have considered the appeal preferred by the husband of the applicant and the same was rejected and communicated vide letter dated 01.03.2017 but fact remains that the husband of the applicant was restrained from duty on the strength of punishment notice No. GM/57/Staff/D&A/16/GKP/26 dated 19.01.2017 and expired on 092.03.2017. No evidence has been filed by the Respondents regarding service of such order dated 19.01.2017. However, on examination of the said order dated 01.03.2017 and the order dated No. GM/57/Staff/D&A/SF-5/16/GKP dated 12.02.2019, we find the request was rejected without considering aspects noted above; albeit 18 O.A.No. 260/00212/2019 & 46/2020 Rule requires that the authorities concerned considering the appeal or revision have to take into consideration all aspects of the matter with due application of mind. Thus, the said orders obviously can be said to be an orders without complying with Rules and without application of mind by the Appellate/Revisional Authority. In this regard, our mind is reminiscent to the legal maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus meaning thereby in case a foundation is removed the superstructure falls. Further, quod contra legem fit, pro infecto habetur meaning thereby what is done contrary to law is considered not done is a well settled position of law.
9. In view of the facts and law discussed above, the net result is that the impugned orders dated order dated 01.03.2017 and the order dated 12.02.2019 order No. GM/57/Staff/D&A/SF-5/16/GKP dated 12.02.2019 are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Although number of collateral issues had been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, we deem it appropriate not to opine on the same in view of the conclusion reached above. Since Government Servant (i.e. husband of the Applicant) is no more, based on the punishment notice GM/57/Staff/D&A/16/GKP/26 dated 19.01.2017, his family 19 O.A.No. 260/00212/2019 & 46/2020 members cannot be deprived of the death cum retirement benefits and, in such circumstances, remanding the matter would not meet the ends of justice. Hence, the Respondents are hereby directed to release all the benefits to the applicant, as if her husband expired while in service, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
OA No. 260/00046/2020
10. In this OA, the prayer of the applicant is to give her appointment on compassionate ground after quashing the charge sheet dated 07.10.2016, Enquiry Report dated 28.11.2016 and punishment notice dated 19.01.2017.
11. In view of the discussions and direction made in paragraph-9 above, the Respondents are also directed to consider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with Rules and Law within the period as directed above.
12. In the result, both the OAs stand disposed of. No cost.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra) Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.) RK/PS