ORDER

PER: HON’BLE MRS. SHALINI MISRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking therein the following relief:

(a) Declare the impugned action of the respondents in not releasing Death-Cum-Terminal benefits payable to the 1^st applicant on death of her husband, in spite of the representations made by the 1^st applicant and further action of the respondents in not considering the case of the 2^nd applicant, for providing compassionate appointment, as she being dependant of deceased employee, is highly illegal, arbitrary, violative of article 14, 16 and 300-A of Constitution of India and also contrary to the CCS (Pension) Rules. (b) Consequently, direct the respondents to pay the terminal benefits payable to the deceased husband of the 1^st applicant with interest at 18% per annum, from the date of accrual.

2. Brief facts of the case as adduced by the applicants are as below: I. The 1st applicant’s husband Late Sri M.Narayana Murthy was initially appointed as Booking Clerk in the respondent corporationon 10.06.1972. Later he worked as Senior Booking Clerk at Sirpur-Kaghaznagar Railway Station. While working as Sr.Booking Clerk, he was removed from the service vide penalty order dated29.06.2000 for alleged misappropriation of Railway Revenue to theextent of Rs.2,375/-. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal before superior authority and subsequently it is learnt that the superior authority ordered for reinstatement whereas the said orders were not served on to the 1st applicant’s husband.

II. While conducting enquiry in DAR proceedings, the respondents have not followed the procedure contemplated in service rules nor objections were called for thus violating principles of natural justice.

While so, the 1st applicant’s husband had expired on 28.01.2003 having a service of 13 years ahead.

III. When the 1st applicant submitted representation to the respondents claiming to settle death-cum-terminal benefits due to be paid to her husband and also family pension, the Divisional Railway Manager,Secunderabad vide letter dated 23.02.2005 advised the applicants to submit a copy of death certificate of Sri M.Narayana Murthy and GP.46 Forms along with Bank Account number to take further action. In pursuance of the said letter, the applicants submitted thedetails required to the respondents on 08.03.2005. Thereafter, the respondents replied that they cannot settle the dues as Sri Narayana Murthy was removed from service and advised the 1st applicant toremit the alleged money of Rs.2375 to the office. Accordingly, the applicants remitted the alleged money to Divisional Cashier,Secunderabad on 14.03.2005. The applicants submit that in spite of remitting the money also, the respondents have not settled the terminal benefits due to the 1st applicant’s husband till now. But anamount of Rs.24000 towards PF was given to the 1st applicant. IV. When the applicants made representation to the DRM, SC Rly.,Secunderabad on 07.09.2016 wherein the 2nd applicant requested to settle the dues of her deceased father and family pension as her mother was suffering with illness and also requested for compassionate appointment, the respondents replied that since Sri M.Narayana Murthy was removed from service, as per rules, the family is not eligible for sanction of family pension or appointment on compassionate grounds.

V. The applicants submit that Sri M.Narayana Murthy was straight away imposed with a major punishment of removal from service without following the procedure. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jameel vs. State of UP in SLP No.4917/2009, the punishment should be proportional and commensurate with the gravity of the offence committed. In the instant case just for the mistake happened in accounting of money of a meagre amount of Rs.2375/-, the respondents have imposed punishment