Jharkhand High Court
Pranita Gupta vs Senior Divisional Manager on 8 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 2898 of 2014
---
Pranita Gupta ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Senior Divisional Manager, Hazaribagh Division, LIC of India,
Hazaribag
2. Branch Manager, LIC, Chirkunda Branch, Chirkunda, Dhanbad
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate
---
18/08.05.2023 Heard Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent - LIC.
In this writ application, the petitioner had originally prayed for
consideration of the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment
on account of the fact that the husband of the petitioner went missing
since 06.09.2006. The petitioner had also prayed to release the admitted
dues along with the family pension of the missing employee to the
petitioner. Since during the pendency of this writ application, it came to
the knowledge of the petitioner that her husband has been dismissed
from service on account of unauthorised absence, an interlocutory
application was preferred which was allowed on 22.03.2021 and
pursuant to the same, the amended writ application has been filed by the
petitioner. In the amended writ application, the additional prayer made
by the petitioner is for quashing of the order dated 19.02.2008 passed
under the signature of respondent no. 1 whereby and whereunder he has
been held guilty of unauthorised absence from duty and maximum
punishment of removal from service has been awarded to the husband of
the petitioner.
It has been submitted by Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the
petitioner while referring to the impugned order dated 19.02.2008 to the
effect that neither the second show-cause notice nor the final order of
removal from service was served upon the petitioner. Learned counsel
further submits that a suit was preferred by the petitioner for declaring
the civil death of her husband being Original Suit No. 884 of 2021 which
was decreed in her favour vide judgment dated 31.01.2023. It has further
been submitted that admitted dues to the petitioner has also not been
paid during the intervening period.
Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel for the LIC submits that the
impugned order is not assailable on account of the fact that the inquiry
report was sent to the delinquent employee and the inquiry proceedings
were also decided ex-parte in absence of the husband of the petitioner
appearing before the inquiry officer, though notices were issued to him
on several occasions. It has further been submitted that so far as the
claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner is concerned, in
view of the final order dated 19.02.2008, wherein the husband of the
petitioner has been removed from service, such claim cannot be legally
sustainable.
The factual aspects of the case reveal that the husband of the
petitioner was appointed on 21.12.1990 in Life Insurance Corporation of
India and he was working as a Cashier under the respondent no. 2. The
husband of the petitioner went missing on 06.09.2006 for which a station
diary entry was registered. On account of unauthorised absence from
the duty, a show-cause notice was sent to the missing employee and
thereafter a departmental proceeding was started and the final order
dated 19.02.2008 removing the husband of the petitioner from service
came to the knowledge of the petitioner during the pendency of this writ
application which has led to filing of an amendment application
challenging the said order dated 19.02.2008. A specific statement has
been made by the petitioner in paragraph 13 of the instant application
that though the inquiry officer had come to a conclusion that the
husband of the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from duty, but no
second show-cause notice was received by her nor did she receive the
final order passed by the disciplinary authority awarding the
punishment of removal from service of her husband. The counter
affidavit does not appear to dispute the aforesaid contentions made by
the petitioner from which it also appears that subsequent development
has taken place to the effect that the petitioner had preferred an original
suit for declaring civil death of her husband under Section 108 of the
Indian Evidence Act and the Original Suit No. 884 of 2021 was decreed
by the concerned court vide judgment dated 31.01.2023 in her favour.
Irrespective of the subsequent development as has been noted
above, since the order dated 19.02.2008 clearly indicates that a second
show-cause was never issued prior to passing of the said impugned
order apart from the final order dated 19.02.2008 not having been served
upon the petitioner, the said order is hereby quashed and set aside and
the matter is remanded back to the concerned authority to decide the
matter afresh as also taking into consideration the subsequent
development which has been noted above.
It is made clear that the claim for compassionate appointment of
the petitioner shall be dependent on the fresh order which is to be passed
by the disciplinary authority in view of the quashment of the order dated
19.02.2008 passed by the respondent no. 1 and which is remanded to him.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
R Shekhar Cp 2
