MEENU BAKSHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground in one of the branches of State Bank of India, in Delhi, after quashing the order dated 27.11.96 whereby the Bank has declined to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground.

(2.) The husband of the petitioner'was working as an Accountant in the Jodhpur Branch of State Bank of India. A criminal case was registered against the husband of the petitioner on the allegation that he perpetrated a fraud to the tune of RS.4,S3,000/~ while working as Accountant at I.A.F. Station Branch, Jodhpur. The said case was investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and in its report the CBI recommended prosecution against the husband'of the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner was placed under suspension on 1.2.92 and a charge sheet was also issued to him. However, the husband of the petitioner expired on 1.6.94 at the age of 40.. years after completing 23 years and one month service in the bank- with the death of the husband of the petitioner, all the proceedings initiated against him were dropped.

(3.) A letter dt.24.6.94 was sent by the petitioner 'to the Supreme Court of India contending, inter alia, that while her husband was in illegal custody, he was mercilessly and severely tortured, which caused his untimely death. In the said letter the petitioner requested for registering a murder case against the concerned officers and to punish them for their criminal acts. On the basis of the said letter of the petitioner Criminal writ Petition No.297/94 was registered in the Supreme Court. A copy of the order passed by the Supreme Court on 30.4.96 is placed on record which indicates that on the basis of the said letter written by the petitioner, a report of the medical board was called for. The medical report was submitted by the medical board on 4.4.96 along with the opinion of the said 'board. The Supreme Court dismissed the said writ petition holding that in view of report of the medical board dt.4.4.96 and the opinion expressed therein, the case registered on the basis of letter of the petitioner was not found to be a fit case to be examined and decided under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by enforcement of a .public law remedy. It'was, however, made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to resort to the private law remedy, if any, for the relief claimed in the writ petition. It was also urged before the Supreme Court that the terminal benefits to the petitioner have not been paid, whereupon the counsel appearing for the Bank stated that all such benefits due to the petitioner would be paid to her.