ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for the following relief: "To issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the concerned records relating to the order No.BAP.DP.2147904 dated 30.11.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent and order dated 04.04.2013 passed by the 1st respondent by confirming the order of penalty dated 30.11.2012 and quash the same by holding that the action of the respondent Management in not increasing the ceiling limit of Rs.1500/- from 2001 for the purpose of the dependents availing medical facility as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to disburse the entire amount recovered from the petitioner together with eligible interest." 2. The petitioner was appointed as Electrician in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL), Trichy in the year 1989 and he was last working as Assistant Engineer Grade I and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. At the time when he was appointed originally in 1979, the petitioner had declared that his father was getting less than Rs.300/- as monthly income as he was employed as a Teacher in a Panchayat Union school and his mother as unemployed. 3. It appears that at that time, as per the relevant clause of BHEL Medical Attendance Rules, ceiling limit was fixed at Rs.300/- p.m. for the dependent parents to claim medical and leave travel facilities. In view of the declaration by the petitioner that the parents monthly income was less than Rs.300/- at the time of his appointment, certain medical facilities were availed for treatment of his father towards his serious illness from the Christian Medical College, Vellore during 2006-2009. Leave Travel Allowance (in short, 'LTA') was also claimed in addition on the basis that the parents were dependent on the petitioner. Subsequently, the claim of the petitioner was subjected to verification and found that at the relevant time, the income of the father of the petitioner by means of pension being more than Rs.1500/- p.m. which was the eligible ceiling limit for availing LTA and free medical facilities provided to the dependent parents of the employee and therefore, the petitioner had made a false declaration of his parents and availed LTA and free medical benefits, for which they were not entitled to. It appears that the father of the petitioner had died for want of medical treatment on 23.12.2010. It appears that the father of the petitioner had died for want of medical treatment on 23.12.2010. For the above said reason, the petitioner was issued with a charge memorandum dated 12.2.2010 levelling two articles of charges against him. The charges as framed against the petitioner are reproduced as under: "i. Shri D.Pandian, Staff No.2147904, Asst. Engineer Grade I, Erection Services, has suppressed the fact of his father's income by means of pension having been more than Rs.1500/- per month which is the eligible ceiling limit for availing LTA and free medical facilities provided to the dependent parents of the employees and made a false declaration of his parents Shri C.Doraiswamy and Smt.D.Jayalakshmi as dependents and has been availing the Company's Leave Trave Assistance and free Medical benefits for them for which they are not entitled to. ii. Shri D.Pandian has thus failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and committed the misconduct of dishonesty furnishing false information; acting against the company's interest amounting to acts subversive of discipline in violation of Rule No.4(1) of the BHEL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975 and thus committed misconduct under Rule No.5 -Cl.1, 4, 5 & 20 of the BHEL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975". 4. In response to the charge memorandum, explanation was submitted by the petitioner on 2.3.2010 denying the charges, stating that he had not attempted to suppress any information and he was not aware that every time, when LTA and medical facilities were availed, he had to give declaration. According to the petitioner, by the time when he gave declaration, it was the fact that the ceiling limit was pegged at Rs.300/-. However, not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted and ultimately charges which were borne out by the records, were found to be established. On the basis of the enquiry report, the second respondent by his proceedings dated 30.11.2012 imposed punishment of reduction in pay by one incremental stage for a period of one year with effect from 1.12.2012 and on restoration, the period shall operate to postpone the future increments of his pay. In addition to the imposition of penalty, recovery was also ordered to the extent of expenditure incurred for his parents' medical treatment and LTA for the period in question. In addition to the imposition of penalty, recovery was also ordered to the extent of expenditure incurred for his parents' medical treatment and LTA for the period in question. As against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, a detailed appeal was filed on 7.1.2013 to the first respondent/Appellate Authority and since the appeal was not disposed, the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.No.7939 of 2013 and this Court by order dated 1.4.2013 disposed of the writ petition, directing the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal on or before 30.06.2013. In pursuance of the direction of this Court, the first respondent, by order dated 4.4.2013 rejected the appeal by non-speaking order. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 30.11.2012 and the Appellate Authority dated 4.4.2013 are put to challenge in the present writ petition. 5. Mr. N. Senthilkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that consequent to the orders passed by the respondents, resulting in recovery of almost entire dues payable to the petitioner on his retirement. According to the learned counsel, the total amount which was sought to be recovered from the retirement benefits of the petitioner towards medical facilities granted to the parents was computed at Rs.14,82,709.70 and Rs.43,420/- towards LTA in total, Rs.15,26,129.70. Such huge recovery ordered by the respondents had resulted in extreme hardship and suffering to the petitioner since he was denied almost his entire earnings which were due and payable to him on his retirement. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that at the time when the declaration was given by the petitioner, there was no dispute that the parents of the petitioner were getting less than Rs.300/- towards income in 1980. However, the petitioner had no knowledge that every time when LTA or medical facilities had to be availed by the parents, such declaration had to be renewed. In fact, when such facilities were availed by the petitioner during the relevant period, the officials of the respondent company never informed the petitioner about such declaration to be given by him and he was also not aware of periodical rise in the ceiling limit in respect of availing of medical or LTA facilities. Moreover, he would submit that the charge as against the petitioner did not allege that the petitioner had wantonly availed the concession despite being aware of the position. Moreover, he would submit that the charge as against the petitioner did not allege that the petitioner had wantonly availed the concession despite being aware of the position. According to the learned counsel, the fact of the matter was that the respondent management allowed the treatment of his father in Christian Medical College, Vellore and later by a memo dated 18.8.2009, the management informed the hospital authorities that the medical facilities provided to the father of the petitioner were stopped and thereafter, father of the petitioner had also died. 7. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner had no issue with the punishment imposed on him, but he was more concerned only about such huge recovery, i.e.15,26,137.70 ordered by the management since that would almost wipe out all his retiral benefits which he would be entitled to be paid on his retirement. He would submit that as on date, the total amount that was recovered from the retiral benefits was Rs.3,68,430/- and the balance payable to the petitioner which is still lying with the respondents is little over Rs.10 lakhs. He would submit that the petitioner would be satisfied if atleast the amount which is still not withheld or recovered, may be ordered to be paid to the petitioner as that would go long away in helping him to tide over his financial crisis in the retirement life. 8. Upon notice, Mr.A.V.Arun, learned counsel entered appearance for the respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit. 9. In the counter affidavit, the above facts have not been disputed. 8. Upon notice, Mr.A.V.Arun, learned counsel entered appearance for the respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit. 9. In the counter affidavit, the above facts have not been disputed. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, as per the scheme for the medical treatment and LTA for dependent parents of the employees, the dependent parents are entitled to medical and LTA facilities provided their income from all sources does not exceed Rs.300/- p.m. and even at the time of entry into service, the father of the petitioner was earning more than Rs.300/- p.m., however, the petitioner has given false information by way of declaration that his father's income was less than Rs.300/- p.m. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner had violated the rules in giving false information and hence, he was proceeded with the disciplinary action and by taking a lenient view, a minor penalty was imposed on him besides the recovery of amount which was unduly paid to the petitioner for treatment of his father who was otherwise not eligible for such facilities and also availed leave travel allowance. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, it was the responsibility of the petitioner to intimate the department and such declaration has to be given whenever concession being availed and such obligation is cast on the employee and not on the department. He would submit that a detailed enquiry was conducted into the charges for which, full opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to establish his defence. But the petitioner failed to convince that he was innocent and therefore, the charges were held proved and thereafter punishment was imposed. In the circumstances, he would find nothing wrong in the penalty imposed on the petitioner including recovery portion of it. 10. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents was directed to file a memo as to what was the amount already withheld and what was the amount to be withheld and what was due and payable to the petitioner at the end. In response to the direction, a memo of calculation was filed on behalf of the respondents, which is extracted as under: 1. Total Recovery advice vide Lt.dt.20.04.2010 : Rs.15,26,137.70 2. Amount withheld/recovery status so far recovered amount : Rs.3,68,430/- 3. In response to the direction, a memo of calculation was filed on behalf of the respondents, which is extracted as under: 1. Total Recovery advice vide Lt.dt.20.04.2010 : Rs.15,26,137.70 2. Amount withheld/recovery status so far recovered amount : Rs.3,68,430/- 3. Available amount on the account of the petitioner (A) Gratuity : Rs.10,00,000/- (B) Final TA adjusting IT : Rs. 23,996/- (C) PPP 2013-14 : Rs. 29,869/- Total : Rs.10,53,835/- (2) + (3) : Rs.14,22,265/- Balance to be recovered : Rs. 1,03,872.70" 11. As per the above mentioned calculation Memo, amount was recovered at Rs.3,68,430/- and the amount which is remaining as such without recovery at Rs.10,53,835/-. According to the petitioner. it appears that the balance to be recovered is more than 10 lakhs in which event, the petitioner would be ultimately left with no retirement benefits at all. Although from the materials and facts as pleaded, the claim towards LTA and medical facility by the parents of the petitioner was contrary to the rule position, yet the fact was that the petitioner had not availed such facility intentionally in order to cheat the management. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time when the petitioner was recruited in the year 1979, he had declared the income of the parents and by giving benefit of doubt, probably the petitioner was not aware that he had to declare the income of the parents every time whenever the medical facilities and LTA were availed for his parents. In any event, it was not the case of the management that the petitioner had fully gained monetarily by such claim. The fact remains that the amount had been spent towards medical treatment of the petitioner's father, at the relevant time it was not disputed by the management. 12. In the above circumstances, the attempt of the management to recover the entire amount from the petitioner's retrial benefits appears to be without any justification and unreasonable as that would completely deprive the petitioner of his terminal benefits and would have serious consequences on retirement life of the petitioner and his family. Some times, it is possible that such facilities were availed unknowingly without knowing the legal and other implications. But for that, the petitioner had suffered a punishment and also recovery of Rs.3,68,430/-. Some times, it is possible that such facilities were availed unknowingly without knowing the legal and other implications. But for that, the petitioner had suffered a punishment and also recovery of Rs.3,68,430/-. This Court is of the considered view the recovery already made to the tune of Rs.3,68,430/- and further reduction in pay, was adequate punishment for the petitioner's availing certain medical and LTA facilities contrary to the rules. By ordering recovery, it will almost deny any payment to the petitioner towards his retiral benefits which would certainly be disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by the petitioner. 13. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the proposed recovery by the respondents does not satisfy the test of proportionality on the part of the management and the same has to be interfered with on this ground alone. Moreover, from the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority, it could be seen that the explanation given by the petitioner had not been appreciated at all. In fact, the order passed by the Appellate Authority was plainly non-speaking and did not even remotely address the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Such routine and mechanical approach on the part of the authorities in the facts and circumstances of the case, is nothing but destitution of good conscience and mind. The authorities are expected to apply their mind little more compassionately in such situation when there was no motive attached to the petitioner for making any wrongful gain. In this case, this Court finds that the amount claimed had been spent for legitimate purpose notwithstanding not authorized by the rules. 14. For the above said reasons, this Court has no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order bearing No.BAP.DP.2147904, dated 30.11.2012 passed by the second respondent and dated 04.04.2013 passed by the first respondent, insofar as it seeks to recover the amount of Rs.15,26,137.70 less already recovered. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents to refund the un-recovered amount as indicated in the memo of calculation filed on behalf of the respondents, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that the order of penalty and recovery of Rs.3,68,430/- shall remain as it is. It is made clear that the order of penalty and recovery of Rs.3,68,430/- shall remain as it is. The only balance amount is ordered to be refunded to the petitioner and the same shall be complied with, within a stipulated time as indicated above. 15. The Writ Petition, is therefore, partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.