Disciplinary authority's discretion is paramount in granting compassionate allowance post-dismissal, especially in recurrent misconduct cases.

JUDGMENT

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J This Original Petition is filed by the applicant in O.A.No.396 of 2022 on the files of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, challenging the order dated

25.08.2025 dismissing his O.A.

2. The petitioner, who was initially engaged as a casual labourer on 05.12.1980 under the Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram, was conferred with temporary status on 05.04.1981 and was posted as Khalasi Helper in Coaching Depot, Trivandrum Central. Thereafter, his services were regularised with effect from 31.12.1983. While in service, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on two occasions and penalties were imposed. It is alleged that on 21.06.2005, he was admitted to a mental asylum by his relatives and was treated till 15.10.2019. After his discharge, armed with a fitness certificate, he reported to the Chief Depot Officer on 16.10.2019 and sought permission to join duty. But, he was served with an order passed by the 4^th respondent dated 07.01.2009 dismissing him from service with effect from 09.09.2008 for unauthorised absence during the period from 21.5.2005 to 12.8.2006 after conducting an inquiry. Aggrieved by the afore order, the petitioner preferred an appeal. But the appellate authority while confirming the dismissal order, added a rider that the petitioner will not be entitled for compassionate allowance, since the disciplinary authority had recommended so. The petitioner then challenged this order by filing a revision before the 2^nd respondent and the same was also dismissed. Lastly, the petitioner filed a mercy petition before the 1^st respondent but, the same got rejected. It is aggrieved by the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority, the revisional authority and the order passed in the mercy petition, the O.A. was filed by the petitioner.

3. The Central Administrative Tribunal, after considering the materials on record and hearing both sides, by order dated 25.08.2025, dismissed the O.A.

4. Heard Adv.Aswin V.Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Adv.T.V.Binu, the learned CGC appearing for the respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is highly aggrieved by the non granting of compassionate allowance to him. He submitted that the petitioner has put in 21 years of unblemished service and there are no grounds which would dis-entitle him for compassionate allowance. He relied on the judgment of he Apex Court in Mahinder Dutt Sharma v. Union of India and Others [(2014) 11 SCC 684] and contended that the delinquency leading to the punishment of the petitioner will not fall in any one of the five classifications delineated by the Apex Court and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to compassionate allowance.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the same. He submitted that during the course of hearing before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner has restricted his claim only to the grant of compassionate allowance and the Tribunal has considered the said issue and has decided against the petitioner. He contended that the disciplinary authority himself has recorded that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate allowance and, therefore, the said decision is final and must not be disturbed, without substantial reasons. He argued that the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on two earlier occasions and was imposed with penalties and that his case is not one deserving special consideration.

7. On an anxious consideration of the rival submissions and the materials on record, we are of the view that there is no