HARILAL, J.

1. Railway establishment has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench (for short, 'the Tribunal'), on O.A.No.124 of 2013.

2. The proceedings from which this matter arises was filed by the wife of K.Thankamani, a deceased railway servant. She challenged the order removing her husband from the service on the ground of unauthorised absence. She pleaded that the said order was passed without affording to him, an opportunity of being heard. Her husband was working as Senior Trackman in the Engineering Department of Railway in the Palakkad Division. He became HIV infected and could not be present at the office from 24/6/2006 onwards on account of that. That part, thereafter, due to societal, social, moral and personal stigma, he had been staying away from his residence due to withdrawal psychosis; going by his wife's contentions. His wife was under the bona fide impression that he was attending the office, away from the house and he was staying away due to his difficulty to face relatives and neighbours and the fear of infecting the family members with that dreaded illness. He was being treated at Assisi Snehalaya, Coimbatore, a Centre for HIV/ AIDS patients; however that, his condition worsened and he breathed his last on 6/3/2011.

3. Thereafter, the respondent, the wife of K.Thankamani received Annexure-A4 communication from the establishment stating that her deceased husband was sanctioned compassionate allowance of Rs.3,500/- per month with effect from the date of his death. However, on discreet enquiry, the widow came to know that her late husband was removed from service as per Annexure-A5 penalty advice, without affording to him, an opportunity of being heard.

4. Aggrieved by Annexure-A5 penalty advice, she preferred Annexure-A7 appeal before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent rejected that appeal by Annexure-A8 order. Aggrieved by Annxure-A8 order, the deceased employee's widow challenged the removal of her husband from service, alleging that the said order is exfacie arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable under law. It is the decision rendered thereon; by the Tribunal, that is impugned before us.

5. Establishment filed a reply statement resisting the reliefs claimed before the Tribunal and contended that the late K.Thankamani was imposed with penalty of removal from service, after holding departmental enquiry as provided under Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968; for short the 'Rules'. It was pleaded that all the communications pertaining to the enquiry were sent to his residential address; but the communications were returned with the postal endorsement that the 'addressee left without instructions' or 'unclaimed' as can be seen from Annexure-R2 and R2(b). Notices were pasted on the Notice Boards at the work place of the employee concerned, in compliance with the relevant Rules. Annexure-A5 penalty advice was also returned with the endorsement that 'addressee left without intimation'. According to the establishment, late Thankamani attended duty on 23/6/2006 and is alleged to be on unauthorised absence from 24/6/2006. Hence, the establishment was constrained to initiate disciplinary proceedings, culminating in Annexure-A5 penalty advice which was passed in compliance with the relevant Rules. Thus, the establishment sought that the Original Application be dismissed by the Tribunal.

6. Considering the rival contentions and examining all the records pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings that culminated in the removal of the late Thankamani from service as per Annexure-A5 penalty advice, the Tribunal set aside Annexure-A5 penalty advice and Annexure-A8 order passed in appeal and thereby allowed the Original Application before it. The legality and propriety of the findings whereby the Tribunal allowed the Original Application are under challenge before us.

7. The learned Standing Counsel for the establis