Disciplinary Authority must specifically consider grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 despite serious proven misconduct.

Applicant No. 1, an employee of the Ordnance Factory, Khamariya (with over 20 years of service), was served a charge sheet on 13.06.2012

His wife (Applicant No. 2) informed several respondents of his mental ailment and inability to defend himself.

Following an ex-parte inquiry, Applicant No. 1 was dismissed from service on 28.05.2013

The Disciplinary Authority, however, did not pass any order regarding the grant of compassionate allowance at the time of dismissal, arguing that the gravity of the offence did not warrant special consideration

The applicants approached the Tribunal seeking the quashing of the dismissal and the grant of compassionate allowance

1. Whether the Disciplinary Authority is under a legal obligation to consider and decide upon the grant of compassionate allowance at the time of, or shortly after, passing an order of dismissal or removal

2. Whether the seriousness of the misconduct that led to dismissal serves as an absolute bar to the consideration of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972

Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which mandates that while a dismissed employee forfeits pension, the competent authority may sanction a compassionate allowance not exceeding two-thirds of the admissible pension if the case deserves "special consideration" and requires the authority to examine this issue within three months of the dismissal order

Mohd. Abdul Samad v. S.C. Rly. regarding the principle that serious misconduct alone cannot be the sole ground to deny consideration for the allowance

Mahinder Dutt Sharma v. U.O.I and M.R. Gupta v. Union of India to establish that the payment of such allowance is a continuing cause of action not barred by limitation

The Tribunal reasoned that Rule 41 does not exclude employees dismissed for serious misconduct from being considered for compassionate allowance; rather, it provides a mechanism for relief in deserving cases based on "special consideration"

The court noted that the respondents failed to follow the procedural requirement of Rule 41(2), which necessitates a decision on the allowance within three months of dismissal

By examining precedents, the Tribunal observed that factors such as length of service (over 20 years in this case), family dependents, and the nature of the service rendered must be balanced against the misconduct

The Tribunal found that the Disciplinary Authority cannot summarily ignore the provision of compassionate allowance simply because the dismissal was based on proved charges, as the rule itself is an ameliorative provision designed for dismissed individuals

The respondents were directed to pass a reasoned order and, if sanctioned, pay the allowance from the date of dismissal (28.05.2013) within 90 days