Leela Pathrabe vs General Manager, N E Rly

(Reserved on–02.09.2026)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD

th
Pronounced on this the 16 day of October, 2026.

Original Application No.843 of 2018.

Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J)
Hon’ble Ms. Manju Pandey, Member (A)

Leela Pathrabe aged about 60 years w/o Late. K B. Pathrabe, Flat
No.103, Shai Sharda Billa Apartment (in the fron of Roshan Billa),
Shardanagar, Kanpur Nagar-208025
----- Applicants
By Advocate: Shri A D Singh

VERSUS

1. Ministry of Railways (Union of India through Chief Secretary),
Central Board of Railway Department of Railway, Rail Bhawan, 1,
Raisina Road, Central New Delhi-110001.
2. General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur-273012.
3. Divisional Railway Manager (North Eastern Railway), SH-37,
Izzatnagar, Barrilly, Uttar Pradesh-243122.
----Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Bablu Singh
O R D E R

By Hon’ble Ms. Manju Pandey, Member (A):-

Heard Shri A D Singh learned counsel for the applicant and Shri
Bablu Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This Original Application is filed under section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs:-
8. (i) Call for the original record and service book
and civil list relating to the letters dated 24.08.2004
issued by the respondent; and
Page 1 of 16

VIVEK
RAWAT

(ii) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated
24.08.2004 as being illegal, arbitrary,
discriminatory, unjust and subversive; and
(iii) Direct the respondent to release the amount
secured by the Respondent in view of Provident
Fund, Pension and other Benefits thereon.
(iv) Direct the respondent to appoint the son of the
Petitioner on the post suitable for appointment in
lieu of the rules and procedure of the appointment of
the deceased employed.
(v) Pass any other/further order/s or direction/s
which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit in the
facts and circumstances of the present case.
3. The Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are that the
applicant, Smt. Leela Pathrabe, is the wife of Shri K.B. (Krishna Bitthal)
Pathrabe, who was appointed as Cashier in the Railway Department on
01.07.1983 in the pay scale of Rs.1600–2660. Shri K.B. Pathrabe
suddenly went missing on 06.12.1999, whereupon the applicant
approached the police authorities for registration of an FIR and, upon
failure of the police to take action, moved an application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. before the competent court, pursuant to which FIR
No.342/2001 was registered at Police Station Kotwali Sadar,
Farrukhabad on 27.10.2001 under Section 364 IPC; however, after
investigation, the police submitted Final Report No.99/2001 dated
23.12.2001, stating that the whereabouts of Shri K.B. Pathrabe could not
be ascertained and that the allegation of kidnapping was not established.
Meanwhile, despite the Railway Administration having been informed
about his disappearance, disciplinary proceedings continued against him,
and an Inquiry Officer, Shri Raj Narayan Gupta, recorded that the
inquiry could not be completed due to the disappearance of the
employee. The applicant repeatedly informed and approached the
Railway authorities regarding her husband's disappearance and sought
payment of admissible dues, pensionary benefits and compassionate
appointment. Nevertheless, the Railway Administration passed an order
dated 24.08.2004 removing Shri K.B. Pathrabe from service on the
ground of unauthorized absence. Subsequently, during correspondence
and inquiry, it was specifically observed that the Railway Administration
had knowledge of the employee's disappearance prior to imposition of
Page 2 of 16

VIVEK
RAWAT

the penalty and that the procedure followed in the disciplinary
proceedings was not in accordance with the prescribed rules; it was
further opined that the order of removal dated 24.08.2004 might not be
legally sustainable. The applicant thereafter made repeated
representations and sought information under the Right to Information
Act, 2005, including on 18.05.2007, 06.03.2008, 02.11.2015,
05.12.2015, 26.02.2016, 09.06.2016, 10.08.2016, 23.08.2016 and
02.11.2016, seeking reconsideration of the removal order, release of
admissible dues and action in accordance with Railway Board
instructions. The Railway authorities, however, failed to grant the
applicant any effective relief. The applicant relies upon Railway Board
instructions dated 22.08.1991 regarding cancellation of removal from
service in genuine cases of missing employees and grant of
consequential benefits to their families, as well as the Railway Board
notification dated 21.01.1994 concerning settlement dues payable to
eligible family members of Railway employees who have suddenly
disappeared and whose whereabouts are not known. After pursuing the
matter before the Railway authorities for several years, the applicant
caused a legal notice dated 22.02.2018 to be issued through counsel, but
no reply or effective relief was provided. Consequently, having remained
without relief despite pursuing the matter since the disappearance of her
husband in 1999 and despite placing voluminous records and documents
before the authorities, the applicant has approached the Hon’ble Tribunal
under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging
the action of the respondents as illegal, arbitrary, irrational,
discriminatory and contrary to the applicable rules, Railway Board
instructions and the principles of natural justice. Hence this original
application.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has filed
the counter affidavit and stated that the husband of the applicant, Shri
K.B. Pathrabe, was working as Sub-Divisional Treasurer, Farrukhabad,
under the Cash and Pay Office, and while discharging his duties, certain
financial irregularities were detected against him, including a
shortage/misuse of Government funds amounting to Rs.55,509/-. Earlier,
Page 3 of 16

VIVEK
RAWAT

on 25.02.1999, a lapse involving Rs.17,073/- was detected during the
audit conducted by the Divisional Audit Officer, Izzatnagar, pursuant to
which Memorandum No. प्रमलेधि / इज्जत / डी०ए०आर० /99 dated 08.04.1999
was issued, and prior thereto, in respect of irregularities relating to the
year 1997, Memorandum No. प्रमलेधि / इज्जत / डी०ए०आर० /98 dated
15.12.1998 had also been issued alleging non-deposit of Rs.7,512/- into
Government funds and misuse thereof. Thereafter, a major charge-
sheet/penalty memorandum No. प्रमलेधि / इज्जत / डी०ए०आर० /99 dated
17.06.1999 was issued by the competent authority, namely the
Divisional Accounts Officer/controlling authority, as the Cash and Pay
work was under the Divisional Accounts Office, and Inquiry Officers
were appointed from time to time as directed by the competent authority.
The Inquiry Officer issued letters dated 26.03.1999, 09.04.1999,
18.04.1999 and 13.06.2000 requiring the employee to appear and
participate in the inquiry, but he failed to appear. No explanation was
received from him even after about one and a half months of issuance of
the major charge-sheet, and consequently the Disciplinary Authority,
vide letter No. प्रमलेधि / इज्जत / डी०ए०आर० /99 dated 06.08.1999, called
upon him to submit his explanation. The employee had also allegedly
communicated by letter dated 17.11.2000 that he did not wish to
continue in service; the said letter was received in the office on
21.11.2000 and a Speed Post communication was sent to the same
address on 29.11.2000, which was returned undelivered. Shri Shatrughan
Prasad, Inquiry Officer, in his report dated 07.03.2002, recorded that
despite opportunities, the employee neither appeared personally nor
appointed any Defence Assistant/representative and did not participate in
the inquiry or submit any correspondence in his defence. Subsequently,
on 26.11.2001, Shri Raj Narayan Gupta, Assistant Divisional Accounts
Officer-II, Izzatnagar, was appointed as Inquiry Officer in place of Shri
Shatrughan Prasad, and in his inquiry report dated 26.04.2004 he also
recorded that the employee had neither appeared in the inquiry nor
appointed any Defence Assistant and that the charges stood proved on
the basis of the evidence available on record. The inquiry report dated
Page 4 of 16

VIVEK
RAWAT

26.04.2004 was thereafter sent by registered post to the permanent
address available in the employee's personal file on 08.07.2004, but the
same was returned without acknowledgment. It is further submitted that,
as per the departmental records, the employee had remained
unauthorisedly absent from 21.08.1999 and had not furnished any
information to the department regarding his whereabouts. Upon
consideration of the inquiry proceedings and the proved charge of
shortage/misuse of Government funds amounting to Rs.55,509/-, the
Disciplinary Authority, in exercise of powers under the Railway
Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, particularly Rule 6(ii),
passed the order dated 24.08.2004 removing the employee from Railway
service; the said order was passed on account of the proved
misconduct/financial irregularity and not on account of his alleged
disappearance. The respondents accordingly submit that the applicant's
husband was removed from service for the proved charge of
misuse/embezzlement of Government funds and not merely for being
missing, and therefore the benefits admissible under the applicable rules
were confined to the permissible settlement dues, including PF and GIS,
while compassionate appointment or compassionate allowance was not
automatically admissible in the absence of an order by the competent
authority. The applicant thereafter sought information and
reconsideration of the matter through various representations and under
the Right to Information Act, 2005, including communications relating
to the departmental decision and appeal, and vide letter No.
प्र / आर०टी०आई० / पी०सी० /14/07/442 dated 12.04.2008 she was informed
that a decision in a DAR case could be taken only on an appeal preferred
by the employee and that the information sought was not available
within the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It is further submitted
that the applicant's challenge to the order dated 24.08.2004 has been
raised after an unexplained delay of more than thirteen years and,
therefore, the present Original Application is highly barred by limitation
and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The respondents
further submit that the departmental proceedings were conducted by the
competent authorities after providing opportunities to the employee, the
Page 5 of 16

VIVEK
RAWAT

charges of financial misconduct were duly proved on the basis of the
inquiry record, and the order dated 24.08.2004 was passed in accordance
with the applicable Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1968. Hence, the allegations that the employee was removed from
service merely because he was missing, or that the order of removal was
arbitrary, illegal or contrary to the applicable rules, are specifically
denied, and the present Original Application, being devoid of merit as
well as highly belated, is liable to be dismissed.
5. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant has filed rejoinder
affidavit, wherein, it has specifically been mentioned that the defence
taken by the respondents is misconceived, contrary to the record and
liable to be rejected, as the alleged disciplinary proceedings against the
applicant's husband, Shri K.B. Pathrabe, were not conducted in
accordance with the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1968 or the principles of natural justice. The work of the applicant's
husband was under the Cash and Pay Office and, accordingly, a major
penalty charge-sheet dated 17.06.1999 was issued by the competent
authority alleging deficiency/misuse of Government funds amounting to
Rs.55,509/-, but the respondents failed to appreciate that the applicant's
husband had already become unwell and had been absent from duty from
21.08.1999, pursuant to the sick memo issued by the department, and
thereafter disappeared on 06.12.1999/08.12.1999, as reflected in the
police records/FIR. The respondents' reliance upon letters dated
26.03.1999, 09.04.1999, 18.04.1999 and 13.06.2000 is misplaced,
particularly because the latter communication dated 13.06.2000 was
issued after the applicant's husband's absence and disappearance and
could not have been effectively served upon him. Likewise, the letter
dated 06.08.1999 issued by the Disciplinary Authority was subsequent to
his absence on account of sickness and was never duly served upon him.
The alleged unsigned letter dated 17.11.2000, purportedly stating that
the applicant's husband did not wish to continue in service, was never
authenticated or verified by the Railway Administration before acting
upon its contents; although the said letter was received in the office on
21.11.2000 and a Speed Post communication was allegedly sent to the
Page 6 of 16

VIVEK
RAWAT

address mentioned therein on 29.11.2000, the same was returned
undelivered, which itself demonstrates that the applicant's husband was
not available at the relevant time. The first Inquiry Officer, Shri
Shatrughan Prasad, ADAO-II, Izzatnagar, had initially been nominated,
but his nomination was subsequently cancelled by the competent
authority vide order/communication dated 27.11.2001 as he was cited as
a prosecution witness, and therefore the inquiry report dated 07.03.2002
submitted by him could not legally be relied upon; moreover, the said
report was prepared after the applicant's husband had already
disappeared and without affording him any effective opportunity of
participation. Thereafter, Shri Raj Narayan Gupta, Assistant Divisional
Accounts Officer-II, Izzatnagar, was appointed as Inquiry Officer on
26.11.2001, but he too conducted the inquiry in the absence of the
applicant's husband and concluded in his report dated 26.04.2004 that
the charged employee had neither appeared nor appointed a Defence
Assistant, despite the admitted fact that the employee was missing and
unavailable. The Inquiry Officer also failed to examine all the
prosecution witnesses cited in the charge-sheet and instead examined a
new witness, Shri Amba Prasad, Cashier; out of the three prosecution
witnesses, only one was examined, and even the prosecution witness
cited as Witness No.1 was not examined, thereby rendering the inquiry
incomplete and contrary to the principles of natural justice and the
provisions of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968.
The respondents' assertion that the applicant's husband deliberately
failed to participate in the inquiry is therefore untenable, since the
departmental record itself establishes that he had been absent due to
sickness from 21.08.1999 and had thereafter disappeared, as reported in
the police FIR dated 06/08.12.1999. The inquiry report dated 26.04.2004
was allegedly sent by registered post on 08.07.2004 to the permanent
address available in the personal file, but the communication was
returned undelivered; this circumstance cannot constitute proof of
deliberate refusal or abandonment of service when the employee was
admittedly missing. Further, the Railway Administration had knowledge
of the employee's disappearance, as evidenced by the communication
Page 7 of 16

VIVEK
RAWAT

dated 30.04.2001 and the noting of the Cash Office, Gorakhpur dated
09.01.2007, yet the respondents proceeded to conclude the disciplinary
proceedings without ensuring effective service or providing a
meaningful opportunity of defence. Despite these serious procedural
defects, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned removal
order/NIP dated 24.08.2004 under the Railway Servants (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1968, treating the charge of shortage/misuse of
Rs.55,509/- as proved. However, the applicant submits that the alleged
charge was never lawfully proved because the inquiry was incomplete,
material prosecution witnesses were not examined, the charged
employee was not afforded an effective opportunity of defence, and the
inquiry proceeded after his disappearance. The respondents' own
Annexure-CR-1 dated 01.06.2007, issued by the Disciplinary Authority,
Sr. Divisional Finance Manager, N.E. Railway, Izzatnagar, to the Dy.
FA&CAO, Traffic, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur, in response to the
correspondence dated 20/30.05.2007, cannot cure these fundamental
defects, particularly when the subsequent departmental clarification
itself was based upon an incomplete consideration of the relevant facts.
The earlier disciplinary matters relating to the alleged lapse of
Rs.17,073/- detected on 25.02.1999 and Memorandum dated 08.04.1999,
as well as the earlier memorandum dated 15.12.1998 concerning
Rs.7,512/-, do not form the subject matter of the present proceedings and
are wholly irrelevant to the validity of the impugned charge-sheet dated
17.06.1999 and removal order dated 24.08.2004. The respondents'
contention that the applicant's husband was removed for embezzlement
and not for disappearance is not disputed as a description of the
impugned order; however, the applicant specifically challenges the
legality of such removal on the ground that it was imposed without
following the mandatory procedure and principles of natural justice after
the employee had become unavailable due to sickness and
disappearance. The applicant further submits that the Railway
Administration's own records and subsequent correspondence
demonstrate that the circumstances of the employee's disappearance
were within its knowledge before the conclusion of the disciplinary
Page 8 of 16

VIVEK
RAWAT

proceedings, and therefore the administration ought to have acted in
accordance with the applicable Railway Board instructions concerning
missing employees rather than proceeding mechanically to impose the
extreme penalty of removal. The applicant also relies upon the Railway
Board instructions dated 22.08.1991 and 21.01.1994 concerning cases of
genuine missing Railway employees and settlement of dues to eligible
family members. It is further submitted that the respondents' reliance
upon the communication dated 12.04.2008/22.04.2008, stating that a
decision could be taken only upon an appeal by the employee, is
misplaced because the employee was missing and had no effective
opportunity to challenge the disciplinary proceedings or removal order.
The applicant has also clarified that, contrary to the respondents'
assertion, the admissible PF and GIS amounts have not been paid to her
till date. The applicant had continuously pursued the matter before the
Railway authorities and had submitted representations and RTI
applications, and the delay in approaching this Hon'ble Tribunal was
neither deliberate nor wilful but arose from the applicant's continued
pursuit of the matter before the departmental authorities and the peculiar
circumstances arising from her husband's disappearance. The
respondents' objection regarding limitation therefore deserves to be
considered in the light of the continuing denial of lawful benefits and the
applicant's bona fide pursuit of remedies. In view of the aforesaid facts,
particularly the employee's absence due to sickness from 21.08.1999, his
disappearance on 06/08.12.1999, the unverified letter dated 17.11.2000,
the cancellation of the nomination of Shri Shatrughan Prasad on
27.11.2001, the defective and incomplete inquiry conducted thereafter,
the inquiry report dated 26.04.2004, the impugned removal order dated
24.08.2004 and the subsequent departmental correspondence including
letter dated 01.06.2007 and RTI communications dated
12.04.2008/22.04.2008, it is submitted that the disciplinary proceedings
and the impugned order of removal are vitiated for violation of the
Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and the principles
of natural justice. Accordingly, the applicant respectfully prays that this
Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay, quash and set
Page 9 of 16

VIVEK
RAWAT

aside the charge-sheet dated 17.06.1999 and the impugned removal
order/NIP dated 24.08.2004, direct the respondents to release all
consequential service, pensionary and settlement benefits, including the
unpaid PF and GIS dues, and grant such other relief as may be deemed
just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. We have heard the learned counsels of both sides and have also
gone through their pleadings in details.
7. The applicant’s husband, Shri K.B. Pathrabe, was working as Sub-
Divisional Treasurer, Farrukhabad, under the Cash and Pay Office, and
while discharging his duties, certain financial irregularities were detected
against him, including a shortage of Government funds amounting to
Rs.55,509/- for which a chargesheet was issued to him on 17.06.1999.
Sh. Pathrabe was on unauthorized absence from 21.08.99. The applicant
i.e., his wife lodged a FIR regarding his missing/kidnapping on 27.10.01.
On 23.12.01 however, in the final report submitted by the police
authorities at Farrukhabad, the charge of kidnapping against the persons
named in the FIR was dropped.
8. Meanwhile, enquiry on the chargesheet issued for misuse of
Government funds proceeded ex-parte as in spite of number of letters
issued by the IO to the charged officer, he did not appear and take part in
the inquiry process. At the conclusion of the Inquiry, the charged officer
was removed from service on 24.08.2004 and consequently no retiral
dues except his provident fund and GIS were paid to him.
9. It is the case of the applicant that her husband has been missing
since 21.08.99, information about which has been given by her to the
office also. She also filed a FIR of missing/kidnapping against some
persons who she thought could be involved in the kidnapping vide FIR
No. 342 of 2001 dt. 27.10.2001. The fact that the official was
missing/absent had all along been in the knowledge of office and has
also been mentioned by the IO in the Inquiry Report dt 07.03.2002
where he mentions that the accused official did not take part in the
Inquiry process and it is learnt that he is unauthorizedly absent/missing.
Page 10 of 16

VIVEK
RAWAT

The charged officer did not send any representation against the Inquiry
report (since he was missing) and in its absence, the final punishment
order of removal from service was also issued ex parte.
10. It is seen that from the papers submitted by the applicant that the
disciplinary proceedings which were carried out ex-parte even after the
knowledge in office about the fact that the official was missing also had
many shortcomings. The officer who was made as IO in the case was
also a witness in the case. Chargesheet was issued by a person who was
not competent to do so. Inspite of the knowledge of unauthorized
absence during the entire period of Inquiry, no action was taken against
the unauthorized absence of the official.Since the official was
missing/absent all along, a one sided inquiry was conducted and
punishment of ‘removal from service’ was given.
11. In the letter written by the Dy.FA and Chief accounts officer dt.
30.05.2007 addressed to the ‘Pravar Mandal Vitt Prabandhak-
Izzatnagar’, it has been clearly mentioned that after taking legal opinion
in the case of Sh. Pathrabe, the FA&CAO has ordered that the case be
processed as per Railway Board letter No. E(D&A)91RG6-41 dt
22.08.1991. However, the Varisht Mandal Vitt Prabandhak vide his
letter dt 01.06.07 said that the letter dt 22.08.1991 is about people who
are absent whereas Sh. Pathrabe’s case is about financial irregularity of
Government funds. The letter also said that Sh. Pathrabe has not
appealed against the order of Removal of service given by the
Disciplinary authority and so his case cannot be considered as per the
Railway Board letter dt. 22.08.1991.
12. It is seen that the disciplinary case of the applicant’s husband was
processed and decided without following the principles of natural
justice. No communication, be it the chargesheet or the various letters
addressed to the charged officer to attend the Inquiry were ever received
by the charged officer. The Inquiry officers have themselves said in their
reports that the charged officer is unauthorizedly absent/missing. The
Page 11 of 16

VIVEK
RAWAT

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Dinanath Shantaram
Karekar, 1998(7)SCC 569dt 30.07.1998 has observed that:
Where the disciplinary proceedings are intended to be
“10.
initiated by issuing a charge-sheet, its actual service is essential as
the person to whom the charge-sheet is issued is required to
submit his reply and, thereafter, to participate in the disciplinary
proceedings. So also, when the show-cause notice is issued, the
employee is called upon thesubmit his reply to the action proposed
to be taken against him. Since in both the situations, the employee
is given an opportunity to submit his reply, the theory of
"Communication" cannot be invoked and "Actual Service" must be
proved and established. It has already been found that neither the
charge-sheet nor the show-cause notice were ever served upon
the original respondent, Dinanath Shantaram Karekar.
Consequently, the entire proceedings were vitiated.”

Since in the present case, no official communication regarding the
disciplinary proceeding was ever served on the charged officer, the
entire proceedings were vitiated and the chargesheet deserves to be set
aside.
13. Further, the Government servant had been missing and the
information about the same was available in the office. However, no
proceeding for unauthorized absence was ever initiated against the
official and in spite of the recommendation for processing the case as per
Railway Board’s letterNo.E(D&A)91RG6-41 dt 22.08.1991, the
chargesheet for shortfall of money was finalized and the official was
removed from service.
14. The Railway Board’sletter No. E(D&A)91RG6-41dt
22.08.1991(RBE No.150/91reads as follows:
Sub :- Cancellation of penalty of removal from service
imposed on charge of unauthorized absence where it later
transpires that the case is one of 'Genuine missing' and grant
of consequent benefits to the missing person's family ( No. E
(D&A) 91 RG 6.41 dated 22.8.91)
Page 12 of 16

VIVEK
RAWAT

Some cases have come to notice where Railway servants who
were missing and whose whereabouts were not known to
their family were removed from service for unauthorized
absence. It has been represented by the NFIR in PNM
Meeting with Railways Board that initiation of disciplinary
action in such cases where even the police after all out efforts
have not been able to trace the employee is not justified since
they are to be presumed as dead under Section 108 of the
Indian Evidence Act. The NFIR also represented that in such
cases, the disciplinary action punishment should be annulled
and the families be granted family pension and their request
for compassionate appointment to wards etc., to which they
would have been entitled but for the disciplinary action be
also considered.
2. The Board have considered the matter and it is
clarified that in cases of the type mentioned above where it is
established that the railway employee was really missing and
not unauthorizedly absent, the disciplinary action should be
treated as initiated on invalid premises and the on going
disciplinary action or the punishment order should be
annulled. While the annulment of the on going disciplinary
proceedings in such cases may be made by the disciplinary
authority, in the case of punishment orders already issued,
the annulment may be made by the appellate/revisionary
authority, as the case may be. For this purpose, it is not
necessary to follow any 'Revision' or 'Review' procedure
since the charges/punishment are obviously based on invalid
premises. After the dropping of the disciplinary action and
annulment of the punishment of removal, as the case may be,
the relevant benefits like grant of leave encashment, salary
dues, retirement benefits, etc., may be extended as outlined in
Board's letter No. F (E) III/86/PNI/17 dated 19.9.1986.
Page 13 of 16

VIVEK
RAWAT

3. In cases of the aforesaid type, the question of giving
compassionate appointments towards may also be considered
after a period of 7 years / 3 years as provided in item (iii) of
para 1 of Board's letter No. E (NG) iii/RCI/I dated 7.4.1983."
15. Since, the official is stated to be missing for which FIR had also
been lodged, the case should have been considered as a case of missing
person and processed accordingly.
16. The applicant has also in her relief asked for appointment of her
son to any suitable post. There is RBE No. 164/98 regarding
compassionate appointment in the case of missing Railway employees
also which is as follows:
R.B.E. No. 164/98
(Supplementary Circular No. 29 to M.C. No. 16)
Subject: Compassionate appointment in the case of missing
Railway employees.
[No. E(NG)II/97/RC-1/210, dated 26.07.1998]
Attention is invited to the instructions contained in this
Ministry’s letter No. E(NG)II/81/RC-1/251 dated 06.02.82,
24.05.82 and 21.12.83 on the above mentioned subject.
2. The Department of Personnel & Training, vide their O.M.
dated 31.10.97, have laid down certain norms for
compassionate appointments in the case of missing
Government servants.
3. The matter has been considered by the Board in the light
of the above. Accordingly, in supersession of existing
instructions on the subject, it has been decided as under:

Page 14 of 16

VIVEK
RAWAT

(i ) A request to grant the benefit of compassionate
appointment can be considered after a lapse of at least 2
years from the date on which the Railway employee has
been missing, provided that an FIR has been lodged and
the missing person is not traceable, and the competent
authority feels that the case is genuine;
(ii) This benefit will not be applicable to the case of a Railway
employee:-
(a) who had less than two years to retire on the date from
which he has been missing; or
(b) who is suspected to have committed fraud, suspected
to have joined any terrorist organisation, or suspected
to have gone abroad;
(iii) Compassionate appointment in the case of a missing
Railway employee could not be a matter of right and will be
subject to fulfilment of all conditions, including availability
of vacancy, laid down for such appointment under the
existing scheme;
(iv) While considering such a request, the results of police
investigation should also be taken into account;
(v) A decision on any request for compassionate appointment
covered by these general instructions should be taken only
at the level of the General Manager on the Railways;
(vi) The services of the wards/widows will be terminated in case
the missing Railway employee becomes available
subsequently;
(vii) Compassionate appointment may be delinked from the
payment of settlement dues, i.e., compassionate appointment
in such cases may not be denied or deferred only on the
Page 15 of 16

VIVEK
RAWAT

ground that settlement dues of the missing employee are still
to be paid to the persons entitled to receive them.
4. The above will also be applicable to the wards/widows of
casual labourers (with temporary status) who are found
missing. The other conditions contained in Board’s letter No.
E(NG)II/96/RC-1/85 dated 17.10.1997 (Bahri’s RBO 1997,
p.139) will, however, continue to apply in such cases.
17. Since the applicant’s husband had been tried for financial
irregularities committed by him and the rule above specifies that the
benefit of compassionate appointment to a Railway employee who is
suspected of committing a fraud, even though the enquiry proceedings
were vitiated, case for compassionate appointment is not made out..
18. In view of the above, the chargesheet given to the applicant’s
husband is set aside and the Respondents are directed to process the case
of the applicant for payment of retiral dues and family pension as per the
Railway Board’s letter No. E(D&A)91RG6-41dt 22.08.1991(RBE
No.150/91) within a period of four months from the receipt of this order.
19. The OA is disposed off with the above directions. All MAs, if
any, are also disposed off. No order as to costs.

(Ms. Manju Pandey) (Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai)
Member (A) Member (J)


vivek/
Page 16 of 16

VIVEK
RAWAT