JUDGMENT John Michael Cunha, J. - This is an unfortunate case where a dismissed employee of Reserve Bank of India has knocked the doors of this Court at a ripe age of 81 years seeking compassionate allowance which he feels has been denied to him on account of arbitrary and insensitive action of the respondents / competent authority. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents and have perused the records. 3. The undisputed facts that emerge from the records and from the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties are that the petitioner joined the service of Reserve Bank of India on 25.09.1953. After putting in 30 years of service, while he was serving as a Staff Officer Grade A and was posted to Cancelled Note Vault (CNV) section, he was kept under suspension on 24.09.1983 in connection with the alleged fraud by the employees of the Reserve Bank of India. A criminal case was registered against 17 employees including the petitioner herein on the allegation that by substituting the stolen and punched packets of the notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- in place of the packets of good notes of the same denomination and by falsely tallying the accounts in the bank records in respect of the packets of notes by stealthily removing the same, cheated the Reserve Bank of India, Bengaluru and caused a wrongful loss to the Bank to the extent of Rs.2,20,000/- and thereby committed offences punishable under section 120-B read with sections 380, 381 and 420 of IPC. However, the petitioner and five others were discharged of the above offences vide order dated 24.1.1992 in S.C.No.436/1991 as the Criminal Court did not find sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner and five other accused persons. 4. Simultaneously, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the allegations that in the discharge of his duty, the petitioner acted in a grossly negligent and inefficient manner detrimental to the interest of the Bank and thereby caused pecuniary loss of Rs.2,20,000/- to the Bank. After enquiry, the charge was held proved and considering the enquiry report, the competent authority dismissed the petitioner from the Bank's service in terms of Regulation 47(1)(e) of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948. After enquiry, the charge was held proved and considering the enquiry report, the competent authority dismissed the petitioner from the Bank's service in terms of Regulation 47(1)(e) of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948. It was also proposed in terms of Regulation 47(1)(d) to recover from the petitioner a sum of Rs.14,022.67 being the share of pecuniary loss caused to the Bank. The appeal filed by the petitioner did not find favour with the Appellate Authority and consequently, the appeal was dismissed confirming the findings of the Enquiry Authority and upholding the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority; resultantly, the petitioner stood dismissed from service 52 days before his retirement. 5. More than 25 years after the dismissal, the petitioner made a representation to the Regional Director (respondent No.1) seeking compassionate allowance in terms of Regulation 27 of the Reserve Bank of India Pension Regulations, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations, 1990"). The said representation came to be dismissed by communication dated 24.12.2014 issued by the Assistant General Manager at Annexure-'S'. It is a cryptic order which reads thus:- CO. HRMD No. Disc10278/06.52.002/2014-15 December 24, 2014 Shri G. Hari Ram 597, 12th Main Road HAL Second Stage Bengaluru-560008 Dear Sir Dismissal from Banks Service Request for compassionate allowance Please refer to your letter dated July 1, 2014 addressed to the Directorate of Public Grievances New Delhi which has been forwarded to us by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. We advise that we have considered your request sympathetically but regret our inability to accede to the same under extant instructions. Yours faithfully Sd/- (A.B. Singh) Assistant General Manger 6. Here itself it may be relevant to refer to Regulation 27 of the Regulations, 1990, which is extracted herebelow:- 27. Compassionate allowance (1) An employee of the Bank who is dismissed or terminated from service shall forfeit his pension. Provided that the authority competent to dismiss or terminate from service may, if the case is deserving of special consideration, sanction a compassionate allowance not exceeding two-third of pension which would have been otherwise admissible to him. (2) A compassionate allowance sanctioned under proviso to sub-regulation (1) shall not be less than the amount of Rs.720/- per mensem in the case of a full-time employee, and proportionate amount thereof in relation to rate of wages applicable in case of a part-time employee. (2) A compassionate allowance sanctioned under proviso to sub-regulation (1) shall not be less than the amount of Rs.720/- per mensem in the case of a full-time employee, and proportionate amount thereof in relation to rate of wages applicable in case of a part-time employee. A reading of this Regulation will show that an employee of the Bank who is dismissed or terminated from service is eligible for compassionate allowance if the case is "deserving of special consideration". But the third respondent, though he is not the competent authority to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner, has brazenly issued the impugned communication Annexure-'S' rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the purported ground that the same is not permissible under "extant instructions". What are those "extant instructions" are not forthcoming either in Annexure-'S' or in the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondents. No such instructions are brought to the notice of this court which would disentitle the petitioner for grant of compassionate allowance. On the other hand, Regulation 27 of the Regulations, 1990 referred above, in unmistakable terms, contemplates payment of compassionate allowance provided the case of the employee falls within the realm of this regulation. The impugned communication Annexure-'S' therefore having been issued without authority of law and contrary to Regulation 27 is ex facie unauthorized, illegal, unjustified and is liable to be quashed solely on that ground. 7. In determining the question as to what are the considerations that should weigh with the authorities in deciding the claim for compassionate allowance has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAHINDER DUTT SHARMA vs. UNION OF INDIA & Others, (2014) AIR SC 2009 , wherein dealing with the eligibility of a dismissed employee for grant of compassionate allowance in the context of Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para 13 of the above judgment, has held thus: "13. In our considered view, the determination of a claim based under Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, 1972, will necessarily have to be sieved through an evaluation based on a series of distinct considerations, some of which are illustratively being expressed hereunder:- (i) Was the act of the delinquent, which resulted in the infliction of the punishment of dismissal or removal from service, an act of moral turpitude? An act of moral turpitude, is an act which has an inherent quality of baseness, vileness or depravity with respect to a concerned person's duty towards another, or to the society in general. In criminal law, the phrase is used generally to describe a conduct which is contrary to community standards of justice, honesty and good morals. Any debauched, degenerate or evil behaviour would fall in this classification. (ii) Was the act of the delinquent, which resulted in the infliction of the punishment of dismissal or removal from service, an act of dishonesty towards his employer? Such an action of dishonesty would emerge from a behaviour which is untrustworthy, deceitful and insincere, resulting in prejudice to the interest of the employer. This could emerge from an unscrupulous, untrustworthy and crooked behaviour, which aims at cheating the employer. Such an act may or may not be aimed at personal gains. It may be aimed at benefiting a third party, to the prejudice of the employer. (iii) Was the act of the delinquent, which resulted in the infliction of the punishment of dismissal or removal from service, an act designed for personal gains, from the employer? This would involve acts of corruption, fraud or personal profiteering, through impermissible means by misusing the responsibility bestowed in an employee by an employer. And would include, acts of double dealing or racketeering, or the like. Such an act may or may not be aimed at causing loss to the employer. The benefit of the delinquent, could be at the peril and prejudice of a third party. (iv) Was the act of the delinquent, which resulted in the infliction of the punishment of dismissal or removal from service, aimed at deliberately harming a third party interest? Situations hereunder would emerge out of acts of disservice causing damage, loss, prejudice or even anguish to third parties, on account of misuse of the employee's authority to control, regulate or administer activities of third parties. Actions of dealing with similar issues differently, or in an iniquitous manner, by adopting double standards or by foul play, would fall in this category. (v) Was the act of the delinquent, which resulted in the infliction of the punishment of dismissal or removal from service, otherwise unacceptable, for the conferment of the benefits flowing out of Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, 1972? (v) Was the act of the delinquent, which resulted in the infliction of the punishment of dismissal or removal from service, otherwise unacceptable, for the conferment of the benefits flowing out of Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, 1972? Illustratively, any action which is considered as depraved, perverted, wicked, treacherous or the like, as would disentitle an employee for such compassionate consideration." In para 14, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that, "14. While evaluating the claim of a dismissed (or removed from service) employee, for the grant of compassionate allowance, the rule postulates a window for hope, " if the case is deserving of special consideration ". Where the delinquency leading to punishment, falls in one of the five classifications delineated in the foregoing paragraph, it would ordinarily disentitle an employee from such compassionate consideration. An employee who falls in any of the above five categories, would therefore ordinarily not be a deserving employee, for the grant of compassionate allowance. In a situation like this, the deserving special consideration, will have to be momentous. It is not possible to effectively define the term "deserving special consideration" used in Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, 1972. We shall therefore not endeavour any attempt in the said direction. Circumstances deserving special consideration, would ordinarily be unlimited, keeping in mind unlimited variability of human environment. But surely where the delinquency leveled and proved against the punished employee, does not fall in the realm of misdemeanour illustratively categorized in the foregoing paragraph, it would be easier than otherwise, to extend such benefit to the punished employee, of course, subject to availability of factors of compassionate consideration." 8. It is really unfortunate that, without considering any of the above factors and without even referring to Regulation 27 of the Regulations, 1990 and without assigning any reasons, respondent No.3 has arbitrarily dismissed the claim of the petitioner. No doubt it is true that compassionate allowance is a matter within the discretion of the competent authority, yet, it is now well settled that discretion has to be exercised fairly in accordance with the rules of reasons and justice and not according to the whims and caprice of the competent authority. It is a duty cast on the competent authority, which needs to be discharged in the manner provided under the rules and regulations. 9. It is a duty cast on the competent authority, which needs to be discharged in the manner provided under the rules and regulations. 9. It is seen from the representation submitted by the petitioner that he has specifically pleaded that he was not involved in any act of misconduct or misdemeanour rather he was dismissed from service on the ground of negligence and inefficiency. Further the petitioner has clearly averred in his representation that on account of his old age and impecunious condition, he was constrained to seek for indulgence of the respondents for grant of compassionate allowance as the Regulations themselves provide for such allowance. In the said circumstance, it was all the more necessary rather incumbent on the part of the respondents to consider the reasons put forward by the petitioner and to arrive at a satisfaction as to whether in the circumstances pleaded by the petitioner he was deserving of special consideration as envisaged in Regulation 27 of the Regulations, 1990. 10. Undeniably, there were no allegations of the petitioner being involved in any act of misconduct or misdemeanour involving moral turpitude and that he has dishonestly caused loss to the Bank. On the other hand, as already highlighted above, the specific charge against the petitioner was that he was negligent in discharging his duty, as a result of which, the alleged fraud was committed by the other employees of the Bank. This circumstance, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision, does not fall within the five categories delineated in para 13 of the above judgment so as to disentitle the petitioner for compassionate consideration. In that view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner having been rejected without considering any of these circumstances and without recording a finding that the petitioner was not deserving special consideration, the impugned communication at Annexure-'S' and the failure of the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner on proper considerations deserves to be deprecated. 11. In the course of argument, learned counsel for respondents has sought to justify the action of the respondents on the plea that the representation submitted by the petitioner was inordinately delayed and no satisfactory explanation was offered for invoking Regulation 27 of the Regulations, 1990. I do not find any substance in this submission. 11. In the course of argument, learned counsel for respondents has sought to justify the action of the respondents on the plea that the representation submitted by the petitioner was inordinately delayed and no satisfactory explanation was offered for invoking Regulation 27 of the Regulations, 1990. I do not find any substance in this submission. First and foremost, learned counsel for respondents has not pointed out any regulation which debars the petitioner from taking recourse to the benefit of compassionate allowance. Even otherwise, there is nothing in the impugned communication Annexure-'S' to indicate that the claim of the petitioner is rejected on the ground of delay. Regulations governing the petitioner do not prescribe any period of limitation for making an application for grant of compassionate allowance. The regulations do not even require the dismissed employee to make an application or representation to the employer under Regulation 27. The very nature of the relief provided under the said Regulation suggest that the said provision is made for the benefit of the dismissed employee when all other doors are closed to him on account of denial of regular pension and gratuity. On going through the said provision, I find that Regulation 27 is founded on Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees right to decent living. It is not a bounty given by the Government or the employer. On the other hand, regulation itself provide for grant of compassionate allowance in deserving cases. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision, the rule postulates a window of hope. 12. In the instant case, the petitioner appears to have sought indulgence of the respondents only when he was unable to fend himself and his family on account of his ripe age and medical exigencies. As already stated above, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected without even considering the grounds pleaded by him and without assigning any reasons on the supposition that the petitioner being a dismissed employee is not entitled for grant of compassionate allowance. This approach of the respondents is opposed to the letter and spirit of Regulation 27 of the Regulations, 1990. It only needs to be reiterated that mere fact that the petitioner is dismissed from service will not lead to dismissal of his claim for compassionate allowance. This approach of the respondents is opposed to the letter and spirit of Regulation 27 of the Regulations, 1990. It only needs to be reiterated that mere fact that the petitioner is dismissed from service will not lead to dismissal of his claim for compassionate allowance. As is evident from the records that the petitioner was dismissed from service only on the ground of negligence and the case of the petitioner do not fall within the categories delineated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision, in my view, the impugned communication and the consequent rejection of the claim of the petitioner are liable to be set-aside. As the respondents have failed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner in proper perspective and having rejected the claim arbitrarily without assigning any reason, Annexure-'S' being perverse and contrary to Regulation 27 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Communication dated 24.12.2014 (Annexure-'S') is set-aside. Respondents competent authority are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate allowance under Regulation 27 of the Regulations, 1990, within 15 days from the date of release of this order, based on the principles laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MAHINDER DUTT SHARMA vs. UNION OF INDIA & Others, (2014) AIR SC 2009 and in the light of the observations made in this order.