The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of a dismissed employee's claim for compassionate allowance must be based on considerations outlined in the relevant regulations and case law, particularly regarding the nature of the dismissal and the absence of moral turpitude or dishonesty.

JUDGMENT

John Michael Cunha, J. - This is an unfortunate case where a dismissed employee of Reserve Bank of India has knocked the doors of this Court at a ripe age of 81 years seeking compassionate allowance which he feels has been denied to him on account of arbitrary and insensitive action of the respondents / competent authority.

2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents and have perused the records.

3. The undisputed facts that emerge from the records and from the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties are that the petitioner joined the service of Reserve Bank of India on 25.09.1953. After putting in 30 years of service, while he was serving as a Staff Officer Grade A and was posted to Cancelled Note Vault (CNV) section, he was kept under suspension on 24.09.1983 in connection with the alleged fraud by the employees of the Reserve Bank of India. A criminal case was registered against 17 employees including the petitioner herein on the allegation that by substituting the stolen and punched packets of the notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- in place of the packets of good notes of the same denomination and by falsely tallying the accounts in the bank records in respect of the packets of notes by stealthily removing the same, cheated the Reserve Bank of India, Bengaluru and caused a wrongful loss to the Bank to the extent of Rs.2,20,000/- and thereby committed offences punishable under section 120-B read with sections 380, 381 and 420 of IPC. However, the petitioner and five others were discharged of the above offences vide order dated 24.1.1992 in S.C.No.436/1991 as the Criminal Court did not find sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner and five other accused persons.

4. Simultaneously, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the allegations that in the discharge of his duty, the petitioner acted in a grossly negligent and inefficient manner detrimental to the interest of the Bank and thereby caused pecuniary loss of Rs.2,20,000/- to the Bank. After enquiry, the charge was held proved and considering the enquiry report, the competent authority dismissed the petitioner from the Bank's service in terms of Regulation 47(1)(e) of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948. It was also proposed in terms of Regulation 47(1)(d) to recover from the petitioner a sum of Rs.14,022.67 being the share of pecuniary loss caused to the Bank. The appeal filed by the petitioner did not find favour with the Appellate Authority and consequently, the appeal was dismissed confirming the findings of the Enquiry Authority and upholding the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority; resultantly, the petitioner stood dismissed from service 52 days before his retirement.

5. More than 25 years after the dismissal, the petitioner made a representation to the Regional Director (respondent No.1) seeking compassionate allowance in terms of Regulation 27 of the Reserve Bank of India Pension Regulations, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations, 1990"). The said representation came to be dismissed by communication dated 24.12.2014 issued by the Assistant General Manager at Annexure-'S'. It is a cryptic order which reads thus:-