APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT 1985 BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI O.A.

No: 1. S.Varadarajan s/o. Station Master & Protocol Inspector Divisional Office SouthernRailway Madurai -VS1. Union of India represented by The General Manager Southern Railway Chennai 2. The Chief Personnel Officer Southern Railway Chennai 3. The Divisional Railway Manager Southern Railway Madurai 4. The Divisional Personnel Officer Southern Railway Madurai Details of Application 1. PARTICULARS OF THE ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE APPLICATION IS MADE: (i) (ii) (iii) 2. Order No. Date Passed by. :U/Z.735/1/07/89. :14-09-2006 :Divisional Personnel Officer/Southern Railway/Madurai :Respondents :Applicant 0f 2012

JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL: The applicant declares that the subject matter of O.A. is within the jurisdiction of

the Tribunal. 3. LIMITATION : The applicant declares that the application is filed within the limitation prescribed in section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985.

4.

FACTS OF THE CASE: (i) The applicant submits that her late husband V.Paraman was working in the Indian Railway as Pointsman in Silaiman Railway Station, Madurai Division. She belongs to SC community and illiterate. Her husband went for duty on 12-10-1985 and did not return home. She made possible efforts to trace him and searched for his whereabouts through her relatives but in vain. Therefore she filed a complaint with the local police. (ii) It is submitted that the local Avaniapuram Police Station registered the case on 03-03-1989 in Crime No. 176/96 under the section man missing and thereafter gave a certificate on 03-09-89 that the whereabouts of her husband was not known and could not be detected. (iii) It is submitted that the applicant later came to know through her relatives that her husband expired on 06-01-97 and death certificate was issued by the Panchayat Union concerned on 05-021997. This information sealed her hopes that her husband would return and take charge of the family. (iv) The applicant submits that thereafter, she preferred several representations to the Divisional Railway Manager and Divisional Personnel Officer of Madurai Division for settlement Dues including family pension due to her, consequent on demise of her husband but she did not get any response. In the circumstances, she filed an Application before this Honourable Tribunal in O.A. No.20/2000 and the honourable Tribunal passed an order on 04-04-2000 to dispose of the representation of the applicant and accordingly she received a reply from the respondents vide letter No. U/P.353/OA 20/2000 dt. 29-05-2000. As per the letter, the respondents rejected the

request of the applicant for family pension and other settlement dues as demanded by her. Hence she submitted a representation dt.09-02-2005 to the 2nd Respondent viz. Divisional Railway Manager/Southern Railway/Madurai requesting for all settlement dues of her husband including compassionate appointment for her son to support her family. (Annexure - ).

(v)

The applicant submits that the respondents rejected her request for her settlement dues and denied compassionate ground

appointment for her son vide respondents impugned letter dated U/Z.735/1/07/89 dt. 14-09-2006. According to it, her husband was removed with effect from 10-11-1988 for unauthorized absence duly conducting exparte enquiry and therefore not eligible for any terminal benefits etc. (vi) It is humbly submitted that in terms of Railway Boards letter No.E(D&A) 83/RG 6-47 dt. 30-08-84, the charge sheet in respect of unauthorized absence should normally be sent to the last known address of the Railway servant and the applicant is living in the present address for the past 40 years and to the best of her knowledge no charge memorandum was sent to the address. (vii) The applicant humbly submits that the 3rd Respondent, the Divisional Personnel Officer, Madurai is also the welfare Officer and the head of the welfare Organisation of the Division and there are several welfare Inspectors working under his control. It is his bounden duty to send one Inspector to ascertain the truth and whereabouts of the employee before removing him. He is not only personnel Officer but also welfare officer of the Division. Unfortunately, no one ever visited her house atleast to enquire the whereabouts of her late husband.

(viii)

The applicant humbly submits that the respondents have her last known address in their records and her family composition is also with them. However, the termination order pertaining to the removal of her husband has not been despatched to her address till date.

(ix)

The applicant humbly submits that as per Railway Boards letter No. E(D&A) 91/RG 6-41 dt. 22-08-1991 ( RBE. 150/91) marked as annexure ( ),, where action was initiated against an

employee for unauthorized absence who could not be traced despite best efforts, he shall be presumed as dead under section 108 G of the Evidence Act and the DAR action taken shall be considered as invalid and be annulled by the Disciplinary authority and if the penalty has already been imposed, the annulement may be done by the appellate /Revision authority. In such

circumstances, the penalty of removal imposed on her husband becomes invalid. The Boards letter cited supra does not stipulate any specific period of time before which FIR should be filed with the police authorities and in other words it specifies the cut off date from which the settlement dues should be paid in the cases of missing persons as that of applicants husband. (x) In terms of Railway Boards letter E(NG)II/97/RC-1/2 10 dt. 26-0798 marked as annexure , applicants son becomes entitled for compassionate ground appointment since her husband was missing and could not be traced for such a long time vide certificate given by the police authorities marked as annexure and subsequently died. (xi) The applicant humbly submits that the Respondents are supposed to adopt a humanitarian outlook by granting compassionate appointment to her son of the deceased/missing Railway servant Late Sri. Paraman so that the family can have one square meal per day. Actually the applicant belongs to the Scheduled Caste eks out

a living by doing some casual and menial works and struggles hard to maintain the big family of 7 members. The family composition is mentioned as annexure. And the copy of ration card showing the details of her family and the income is marked as annexure (xii) The applicant humbly submits that her husband is a permanent employee and has served the Railways for more than 19 years and had an unblemished record of service. Unfortunately he

absconded

leaving behind a big family and for this the family

should not be punished by not granting the settlement dues and compassionate appointment for her first son Sri P.Karuppiah.

5.

GROUNDS for relief with legal provisions: (I) The Respondents have violated the Railway Boards order No. RBE 150/91 dt. 22-08-1991 and RBE No. 164/98 dt. 26-07-1998. (II) The Respondents have not considered that Section 108 of Indian Evidence Act in that the whereabouts of Sri V.Paraman could not be traced despite best efforts of police, he should have been presumed dead, The respondents have not considered this aspect while initiating and finalizing the Disciplinary proceedings. (III) The Respondents have violated the Principles of natural Justice in that they have not taken any effort to hand over the charge memorandum to the late employee Sri Paraman and the orders of removal from service as well. (IV) While disposing of the Disciplinary proceedings, the Respondents actedin a casual manner in that they did not take any effort to ascertain the whereabouts of the late employee either by sending messengers to the last known address or by publication of advertisements in news papers before removing Sri V.Paraman from service and the entire DAR proceedings are vitiated for violating established norms.

(V)

The Respondents have shown undue haste in conducting the exparte enquiry of the missing person and concluded the case by imposing the major penalty of Removal from Service and the family was kept in dark of the happenings with the result , the family has been struggling for survival.

(VI)

The applicant is living in the same address for the past 40 years and she did not receive any communication either regarding the Disciplinary proceedings or her husbands termination from Railway Service.

6.

DETAILS OF REMEDIES EXHAUSTED: The applicant declares that several representations through various modes have

been submitted to the Respondents which were of no avail. 7. MATTERS NOT PREVIOUSLY FILED OR PENDING BEFORE ANY COURT: The applicants declare that they have not previously filed any application or writ petition or a suit in respect of which this application has been made before any court of law or any other authority or any bench of the Tribunal and no such application/ Writ petition or suit is pending before any of them. 8. RELIEF SOUGHT: (I) In view of the facts stated above,in para 4 and the grounds there of in Para 5, the applicant prays for the following relief. The applicant respectfully prays that the Honourable Tribunal may be pleased to pass orders to set asidef the orders contained in letter number U/Z.735/1/07/89 of 14-09-2006 duly calling for the concerned DAR case files and other connected records and direct the respondents to grant all the settlement benefits namely, DCRG,Commutation, Leave salary, family pension etc due to the applicant and also consider her son Sri P.Karuppiah for suitable appointment on compassionate grounds duly annulling the penalty of removal imposed on her husband. (II) To pass such further or other orders as this Honourable Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

9. 10. 1. 2. 3. 4. 11.

INTERIM ORDER, IF ANY, PRAYED: PARTICULARS OF POSTAL ORDER: Indian Postal Order No Name of issuing Post Office Date of Issue :

Nil

: :

Post Office at which payable LIST OF ENCLOSURES:

As per Index Attached

VERIFICATION I, P.Rajammal, w/o late V.Paraman aged about 51 years do hereby declare that all the statements stated above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I have not suppressed any material information.

Dated at Madurai this day of

July 2006. Applicant

Solemnly affirmed and signed before me At Madurai on this day of July 2006.