Patna High Court
Amrita Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 24 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4341 of 2021
======================================================
Amrita Devi Wife of Late Tej Narayan Rai, Resident of Village-Diyaman,
Barka Diya, P.S.-Krishna Braham, District-Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General opf Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional Director General (Headquarter), Head office, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Inspector General of Police, Central Region, Bihar Patna.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Biharsharif at Nalanda.
6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Police Line, Nalanda.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manish Kumar, GP-4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 24-11-2021
Heard the leaned counsels for the parties.
2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for
following reliefs:
"(i) For quashing the memo no.
6528 dated 28.11.2020 issued under the
signature of the respondent Superintendent
of Police, Nalanda whereby and
whereunder Nalanda District order No.
2257/2020 passed in Departmental
Proceeding No. 44/2020 against the
husband of petitioner by respondent
Inspector General of police, Central
Region, Patna (respondent no. 4) whereby
services of the husband of the petitioner
who was posted as S.I. at Nagarnausa
police station has been dismissed from
service by holding that the explanation
Patna High Court CWJC No.4341 of 2021 dt.24-11-2021
submitted by husband of petitioner is not
satisfactory.
(ii) For directing the respondent
authorities to pay all the retiral benefits of
the husband of the petitioner to the
petitioner accrued to the husband of
petitioner due to prolong service in the
Bihar Police on different designation and
order of dismissal as contained in
Annexure-1 communicated to the son of
petitioner when he went to bring the
household article of husband of petitioner
who died on 30.11.2020 and after
completion of last ceremony
approximately after a fortnight said order
was handed over to the son of the
petitioner and as such the same is ante-
dated and not served to the deceased
delinquent employee (husband of
petitioner) and as such the same is not
binding.
(iii) For issuance of any other
relief or reliefs for which the petitioner
may be found entitled in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
3. Short question for consideration in the present
petition is whether order of dismissal dated 28.11.2020 was
communicated to the deceased late Tej Narain Roy before 30 th
November, 2020, the date on which he died.
4. Learned counsel for the State, on instruction, fairly
submitted that order of dismissal dated 28.11.2020 was not
communicated to the deceased-employee while he was alive, in
the result proceedings initiated against the deceased-employee
stands abated. The impugned order dated 28.11.2020 challenged
Patna High Court CWJC No.4341 of 2021 dt.24-11-2021
by the legal heirs of the deceased-employee is set aside.
5. The petitioner is legal heirs of the deceased-
employee is entitled to monetary benefits from the department.
The same shall be examined by the concerned authority and it
shall be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands
allowed.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
rakhi/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 30.11.2021
Transmission Date
