Delhi High Court
Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Manbhar Devi on 21 September, 2015
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C)3035 /2014
% Judgment dated 21st September, 2015
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Naushad Ahmed Khan, Additional
Standing Counsel
versus
MANBHAR DEVI ..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Anjana Gosain with Mr. Vishu
Agrawal, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi has filed the present writ petition
seeking a direction to quash the order dated 24.12.2013 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal‟),
thereby allowing the OA filed by the respondent herein.
2. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this petition are that the
respondent, wife of one Sh. Govind Ram Jat, who was appointed as a
Constable in Delhi Police on 25.03.1988 was posted in Delhi. A
departmental inquiry was initiated against him on 06.08.2001 for allegedly
being absent from government duty without authorization. The summery
of allegations were served on him on 20.09.2001. He did not plead guilty.
The husband of the respondent initially attended the departmental inquiry
on 20.09.2001 and 07.12.2001, but thereafter disappeared. The
proceedings against him were held ex parte and he was dismissed from
service by the petitioner on 02.09.2002. The wife of Sh. Govind Ram Jat
W.P.(C) No.3035 /2014 Page 1 of 3
filed an OA before the Tribunal and prayed that the order of dismissal be
quashed against her husband and service benefits be paid to her as her
husband had been missing for eight years and his whereabouts were
unknown. The OA filed by the respondent being wife of Sh. Govind Ram
Jat was allowed.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Tribunal has failed to take
into consideration that the husband of the respondent had failed to appear
before the Inquiry Officer. Counsel also contends that the Tribunal failed
to appreciate that the husband of the respondent had absented himself
which led to the issuance of a charge sheet and thus, there is no infirmity in
the order passed by the Inquiry Officer and also the Disciplinary Authority.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also carefully
examined the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
5. In this case, the husband of the respondent has been missing for a period of
more than eight years, which fact is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute
that after the findings of the Inquiry Officer, no representation was made by
the delinquent person. In fact, the documents sent at his residence had to
be pasted as none was present.
6. In the case of Banarasi (Smt.) v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.,
2008 VIII AD(Delhi) 193, in which in a similar case, it was held as under:
"Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226 - Writ Petition
challenging order passed by CAT upholding order of disciplinary
authority whereby Bhagwan Singh was dismissed from service-
Petitioner, wife of Bhagwan Singh seeking grant of pensionary
benefits-Held : It is a case where whereabouts of Sh. Bhagwan
Singh right from the date of his absence could not be known to
any person in this world, including his family members - More
than seven years passed and therefore, presumption under
Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act to the effect that Shri
Bhagwan Singh is not alive came into effect - In view of the fact
that Shri Bhagwan Singh was not residing with his family and
was living in police barracks, when he went missing from the
W.P.(C) No.3035 /2014 Page 2 of 3
place of duty under the control of the respondents and did not go
back to his own house and his whereabouts could not even be
traced, the charge of absence from duty, coupled with the fact
that Sh. Bhagwan Singh has not been seen for all these years,
cannot be treated as sustained in the facts and circumstances of
this case In case the husband of the petitioner was dead when
he went missing in 1996, it would be highly inequitable and
unjust to the petitioner to deny her family pension - Writ petition
allowed Punishment of dismissal passed by the respondent
against Sh. Bhagwan Singh set aside on the premises that Sh.
Bhagwan Singh was dead - Petitioner shall be entitled to family
pension and such other benefits as may be admissible to her
under the rules with arrears and for future."
7. It is not in dispute that the husband of the respondent Sh. Govind Ram Jat
has been missing for more than seven years and thus, the presumption
under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act would come into effect that Sh.
Govind Ram Jat is not alive. The case of Banarasi (Smt.) (supra) in our
view is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. We are surprised
that the Department made no attempt to search one of their officers Sh.
Govind Ram Jat. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal.
8. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed being without any merit.
CM.APPL 6356/2014(stay)
9. Since the present writ petition has been dismissed, the application also
stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
SEPTEMBER 21, 2015 pst
