JUDGMENT : Bellunke A. S., J. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying to grant a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 01.03.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench in Original Application No. 1479/2014, vide Annexure-C; a writ in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents to give the all privileges and monetary service benefits to be rendered to the petitioner in accordance with norms in force and issue any other writ or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The brief factual matrix of the case made out by the petitioner briefly stated is as under : The writ petitioner was working as a Head Ticket Examiner under the control of the respondents. He was suspended with effect from 12.06.2008 on the ground of disciplinary proceedings vide impugned order. The suspension was revoked vide order dated 04.08.2008. The disciplinary enquiry was held against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Bijapur Station vide order dated 12.08.2008. The petitioner had also questioned the said order dated 12.08.2008 before the Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.369/2008. The said petition was disposed off with a direction to make a representation to the concerned respondent/authorities. The respondents were also directed to consider his representation sympathetically and to pass a speaking order within thirty days from the date of receipt of the said order. Till such date, the impugned order dated 12.08.2008, as per Annexure-A10 vide order dated 20.11.2008 the transfer order of the applicant to Bijapur Station was stayed. The petitioner gave representation to the respondents for payment of arrears and suspension pay, pay bonds etc. After receipt of the representation, the respondent No. 2 again transferred the petitioner from Bijapura to Hubballi Division and that order was kept in abeyance until further orders. The period from 12.08.2008 till the date of issuance of transfer orders, the period was treated as duty. A letter was issued for relieving the petitioner on 20.11.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner reported to the duty on 20.11.2008. The petitioner had also submitted a representation to the authorities for issuing 6th pay commission benefits payable for the year 2007-2008. The respondent No. 4 had issued a letter to the petitioner for compliance of order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.369/2008 on 22.12.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner reported to the duty on 20.11.2008. The petitioner had also submitted a representation to the authorities for issuing 6th pay commission benefits payable for the year 2007-2008. The respondent No. 4 had issued a letter to the petitioner for compliance of order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.369/2008 on 22.12.2008. Being aggrieved by the letter dated 12.08.2008 and 22.12.2008 issued by respondent No. 4, the petitioner moved an application in O.A.No.7/2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal and obtained an interim order dated 06.01.2008. Thereafter the CAT was pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 12.08.2008 and 22.12.2008. However, the respondents continued departmental enquiry initiated against him. Though interim order against the departmental enquiry was made absolute while disposing of O.A.No.7/2009, the respondents had also given sufficient explanation in the enquiry quoting financial stringencies. The railway administration had also filed W.P.No.22347/2009 before this Court against the order passed in O.A.No.7/2009. The writ petition was admitted and stay was granted to the orders of CAT in O.A.No.7/2009 with a direction to the respondents to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry. Thereafter, the respondents issued a direction to the petitioner asking him to report to the Bijaypur station of Hubli Division as per transfer order dated 12.08.2008 has come into effect. The disciplinary enquiry report was issued by the respondent No. 3 asking the petitioner to submit a reply in fifteen days. Then the respondent No. 3 had imposed a penalty of removal from service with effect from 06.08.2012. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the CAT had heard the matter and without addressing the relevant records, without considering the case of the petitioner on merit, arbitrarily, erroneously dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the petitioner had filed this writ petition with aforesaid prayers. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the disciplinary enquiry report, the petitioner was found to have been in possession of excess amount of Rs.27,930/- with him which was found to be undeclared money in his private cash. He had declared his money at the time of duty only Rs.4,500/- on 04.06.2008. The declaration of Rs.4,500/- as private cash is also without any endorsement of the bearer. Therefore, it is found to be beyond the permissible limit of Rs.1,500/-. Therefore, on these charges, petitioner was dismissed from the service. He had declared his money at the time of duty only Rs.4,500/- on 04.06.2008. The declaration of Rs.4,500/- as private cash is also without any endorsement of the bearer. Therefore, it is found to be beyond the permissible limit of Rs.1,500/-. Therefore, on these charges, petitioner was dismissed from the service. The disciplinary authority without accepting the explanation submitted by the petitioner imposed the penalty. 5. The writ petitioner had filed O.A. No. 1479/2014 against the order of dismissal from the service and to quash and set aside the impugned order of the respondent appointing authority as stated below: (a) Order in No. B/C Vig/Misc/2008 dated 12.6.2008(Annexure A-1) (b) Order in No. B/C.Vig/118/08/GK dated 11.9.2008 (Annexure A-4) (c) Letter in No. SWR(P)HQ/208/Appeal/GK dated 22/12/2008 (Annexure A-11) (d) Inquiry Report furnished under letter in No. B/C Vig/118/08/GK dated 29.3.2012 (Annexure A-25) (e) Penalty Advice in No. B/C/Vig/118/8/GK dated 6.8.2012 ((Annexure A-26) (f) Orders of Appellate Authority in No. B/C.Vig/118/08/GK dated 26.11.2012 ) (Annexure A-28) (g) Order in No. SWR(P)HQ.227/GK(SBC) dated 22.7.2013 ((Annexure A-31) issued by the respondents, as arbitrary, discriminatory and void for the reasons stated in the application, while directing the respondents to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits such as service as monetary benefits and (iii) Pass any other order or direction or any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Tribunal, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play in administration. 6. Writ petitioner had further contended that the excess money was given to one Shri. S.V. Venkataramana for handing over the same to his son Shri. S.V. Manjunath, the authority did not obtain statements from them to verify the facts. Further, the applicant was not given reasonable opportunity to explain his stand. The respondents also did not sanction any subsistence allowance or salary which prevented him from attending the enquiry. Further, there was an inordinate delay in disposing of the disciplinary proceeding. Therefore, he submits that the penalty imposed on him, is unfair and unsustainable and should be set aside. 7. The respondent authority had filed objections denying the case of the applicant before the Administrative Tribunal. After the enquiry proceedings were commenced, in between the writ petitioner, was transferred to Bijapur station on administrative ground. The petitioner has challenged his transfer before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 369/2008. 7. The respondent authority had filed objections denying the case of the applicant before the Administrative Tribunal. After the enquiry proceedings were commenced, in between the writ petitioner, was transferred to Bijapur station on administrative ground. The petitioner has challenged his transfer before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 369/2008. The Tribunal vide order dated 07.10.2008 (Annexure-5) directed him to make a representation to the concerned authorities who in turn were directed to consider the representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order. The respondents passed the order on his representation but they did not modify the inter-divisional transfer order. Thereafter, the applicant against approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 07/2009. The Tribunal vide order dated 10.06.2009 was set aside the transfer order and the respondents were allowed to continue the departmental proceedings and the applicant was asked to appear before the enquiry authority on four occasions. But, he did not do so. 8. It was contended that the respondent was not given any subsistence allowance and therefore, he did not attend the enquiry. However, the Tribunal did not consider this point and held that, in the enquiry, charges were proved. After issuing show cause notice and after receiving reply by the applicant, the penalty of removal of the applicant was imposed. Thereafter, the applicant submitted an appeal dated 25.09.2012 to ADRM, Bangalore. The Appellate Authority after considering the appeal passed an order dated 26.11.2012 and was upheld the dismissal of the writ petitioner from the services. The charges that were leveled against the writ petitioner are : 1. He had declared Rs.4500/- as his private cash at the commencement of his beat Ex.YPR on 04.06.2008 without endorsement of his supervisor, since the declared amount was beyond the permissible limit of Rs.1,500/-. 2. He had not taken the endorsement of his supervisor on the following dates where he had declared his private cash in excess of monitory limit of Rs.1,500/- 15.05.2008, 16.05.2008. 3. Produced Rs.27,930/- excess and undeclared money in his private cash. 4. Not co-operated with the inspecting officials by refusing to remit the excess and undeclared money into Railways. 9. The writ petitioner has challenged the impugned order on following grounds. 1. It is submitted that, the suspended employee cannot be directed to attend the office and withholding of subsistence allowance is not permissible. Removal of service is not judicious. 2. 4. Not co-operated with the inspecting officials by refusing to remit the excess and undeclared money into Railways. 9. The writ petitioner has challenged the impugned order on following grounds. 1. It is submitted that, the suspended employee cannot be directed to attend the office and withholding of subsistence allowance is not permissible. Removal of service is not judicious. 2. The petitioner has clearly informed the administration that, the said extra cash belongs to his neighbor and in this regard, railway administration has not even taken initiative to check the veracity of the statement and fact focused and have directly aimed to remove the petitioner mercilessly and have clearly deviated all the established procedures. 3. The suspension order made is itself contradictory to established procedures. 4. The removal of serve has been imposed on the petitioner by unlawful procedures taking Ex parte decision intentionally to cover up administrative errors and that too railway administration has taken nearly four years to complete the ex parte decision and thereby accounted for procedures deviating the natural justice the petitioner. 5. There is a long delay about 1= years in submitting inquiry report after ex parte and perfunctory inquiry dated 26/11/2009 clearly establishes that model calendar issued by the railway board for disciplinary proceedings have not only been violated but also acted prejudicing his interest and there is not reasons forthcoming as to why there is a delay of 1= years and the disciplinary authority has not discussed anything about inordinate and unexplained delay. 6. The respondents failed to cognizance that neither subsistence allowance nor salary paid to the petitioner which prevents him in attending inquiry nor the respondents have not applied their mind into the statement recorded by the petitioner on the date of investigation. 7. In the case of Mehta v. State of Haryana, (1973) 1 SCC 656 , held that "if the charge was actually unable to appear before the inquiry officer due to non-payment of subsistence allowance, the proceedings before the inquiry officer was vitiated and the order of dismissal would not be sustained. Therefore, the Ex parte decision taken for removal from service will not sustain in the eye of law. Therefore, the Ex parte decision taken for removal from service will not sustain in the eye of law. Further held that ' where the Government servant under suspension pleaded his inability to attend the enquiry on account of financial stringency caused by the Non-payment of subsistence allowance to him, the proceedings conducted against him ex parte would be violation of the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, as the person did not receive a reasonable opportunity to defending himself in the Disciplinary proceedings. 8. The judgment in the case of Inder Mohan Soi v. The Haryana State Electricity Board, (1989) 3 SLR 621 (Punj and Har). Held that "the suspended employee cannot be directed to attend the office and withholding of subsistence allowance is not permissible." The enquiry proceedings and removal from service of the petitioner will not sustain in the eye of law. 10. Therefore, on the above said grounds, the petitioner had sought to set aside the impugned order dated 01.03.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in O.A. No. 1497/2017 vide Annexure-C. The petitioner has also prayed to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give the all privileges including monetary and service benefits that the petitioner is entitled in accordance with norms in force. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent at length. During the course of argument, it was considered that no subsistence allowance was paid to the petitioner during the suspension period. 12. The points that would arise for our consideration are as under : 1. Whether the impugned order dated 01.03.2016 in O.A. No. 1497/2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore calls for interference on the hands of this Court? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for writ of mandamus as prayed in the petition? 3. Whether the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority is proportionate to the charge leveled against the petitioner? 13. We propose to examine the points together as they are interconnected with. The main charge that was alleged against the petitioner is that he had declared his sum at Rs.4,500/- as his private cash at the time of commencement of his duty without endorsement of his supervisor as the declared amount was beyond the permissible limit of Rs.1,500/-. The petitioner was also found a sum of Rs.27,930/- as excess and undeclared money in his private cash. The petitioner was also found a sum of Rs.27,930/- as excess and undeclared money in his private cash. He refused to remit the excess and undeclared money into the railways account. Consequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and he was handed over the penalty of dismissal from the service. 14. It is admitted fact that no subsistence allowance was paid during the period of enquiry and during suspension period. This fact alone by itself vitiates the enquiry. The Tribunal has held that, the same cannot be held a valid reason for upholding the enquiry. There is also a long delay about 1= year in submitting inquiry report after ex-parte and perfunctory inquiry dated 26.11.2009, even the delinquent employee has not participated in the proceedings. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in the case of Ghanshyam Das Srivastaa v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1973)1 SCC 656 and in the case of Mehta v. State of Haryana, (2001) 1 SLJ 164 (P & H). 16. Therefore, having regard to the above said authorities, we find that there is gross procedural violation while conducting disciplinary proceedings against the employee. The same could not have been continued without paying subsistence allowance to the said employee. In addition to that, it is not the allegation nor it is proved by the evidence that the excess cash found in the person of the employee, was earned by way of any corrupt practices. Admittedly, the petitioner was a ticket collector for a long journey. The entire period of journey was not more than two days. Therefore, it cannot be inferred during that period he could have earned the amount of Rs.27,930/- by way of corrupt practice. Explanation was given by the employee with regard to possession of excess amount. Therefore, it was incumbent upon disciplinary authority and enquiry authority to state reasons to disbelieve the version set out by delinquent. Therefore, viewed from any angle of facts, the finding of the disciplinary authority appears to be erroneous. Therefore, in view of non- payment of subsistence allowance, the disciplinary authority could not have continued these proceedings. 17. Now coming to the proportionality of the charge and punishment imposed we also find that it is quite harse. 18. As per Annexure-A30, the department has granted 2/3rd of pension and gratuity in terms of Rule 65 of Railway Servants (Pension) Rules, 1993. 17. Now coming to the proportionality of the charge and punishment imposed we also find that it is quite harse. 18. As per Annexure-A30, the department has granted 2/3rd of pension and gratuity in terms of Rule 65 of Railway Servants (Pension) Rules, 1993. Meanwhile, the petitioner had also attained the age of superannuation. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and facts, having regard to the fact that the department had sanctioned 2/3rd of pension and gratuity. Taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner, we find that the order of restoration of all the benefits to the petitioner cannot be passed and the petitioner succeeds partially. 19. In view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case; we find that the petitioner shall be granted relief of full pension and admissible gratuity instead of 2/3rd as ordered by the department. For aforesaid reasons, we pass the following order. ORDER The petition is allowed. Order dated 01.03.2016, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Original Application No. 1479/2014 is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to pay full pension and admissible gratuity to the petitioner.