Conviction for culpable homicide can disentitle a removed railway employee from compassionate allowance.

The applicant, a Railway employee appointed in 1975, was taken into judicial custody on 7 December 1984.

Though the removal notice was issued on 27 September 1988, it initially made his removal effective from 7 December 1984.

In an earlier application, the Tribunal directed the respondents to treat the removal as effective from the date of the notice and to grant pensionary benefits admissible for his service up to removal.

The respondents issued a corrigendum accordingly, treating the intervening period as deemed suspension, but a speaking order dated 20 March 2020 rejected his claim for compassionate allowance.

The applicant sought to set aside that order and obtain pensionary and other benefits, including suspension allowance.

The High Court had altered his conviction from Section 302/34 IPC to an offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and imposed a five-year sentence.

1. Whether the respondents’ speaking order refusing compassionate allowance was liable to be set aside under Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to pension, gratuity, suspension allowance, and other claimed benefits notwithstanding his removal from service following his criminal conviction.

Rule 65(1) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 provides that an employee dismissed or removed from service forfeits pension and gratuity, but permits the competent authority, where the case deserves special consideration, to grant compassionate allowance of up to two-thirds of the pension or gratuity, or both, that would otherwise have been admissible.

Railway Board’s RBE No. 164/2008 sets out considerations for reviewing such claims, including the circumstances of the misconduct, the employee’s service, and whether the misconduct involved dishonesty; it makes compassionate allowance a matter for assessment on the merits of the case.

Applying Mahinder Dutt Sharma v. Union of India, (2014) 11 SCC 684, the Tribunal noted that conduct involving moral turpitude or otherwise unacceptable conduct may ordinarily weigh against compassionate consideration, though the decision depends on the circumstances.

The Tribunal considered the applicant’s conviction and the appellate court’s finding that he was guilty under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment.

It concluded that his case fell within the categories identified in Mahinder Dutt Sharma concerning moral turpitude and conduct otherwise unacceptable for compassionate consideration.

On that basis, it found no merit in the challenge to the speaking order refusing compassionate allowance; it did not treat the earlier direction to correct the effective date of removal as creating an automatic entitlement to pension or gratuity.

Accordingly, it granted no relief against the speaking order refusing compassionate allowance or for the additional benefits claimed.

There was no order as to costs.