JEYABHARATHAM Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed O.A.No.2326 of 2003 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, seeking to challenge the order of the first respondent - Deputy Inspector General of Police, Reserve Police, Chennai -4 dated 10.03.2003 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay the petitioner pensionary benefits due to her on account of the disappearance of her husband S.Venkatasamy working as a Head Constable as well as the family pension without insisting for a declaration of death from a Court of law.

(2.) THE Original Application was admitted on 09.07.2003. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondents had filed a reply affidavit dated 04.08.2003.

(3.) IT was the stand of the respondents that the petitioner's husband did not report for duty on 03.07.1992 as instructed by the incharge Sub-Inspector. He was also absent for duty without any leave and without prior permission. Since he was absent consecutively for 21 days, he was treated as a deserter by proceedings dated 24.07.1992 and in terms of the Police Standing Order 81. Subsequently, a charge memo under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules (D & A) Rules was framed against him for being unauthorisedly absent and allowing him to be declared as deserter. The respondents also claimed that an oral enquiry was conducted and he did not appear in the enquiry despite a notice being pasted on the house of the petitioner's husband. Thereafter, a proved Minute was drawn and the husband of the petitioner was allegedly dismissed with effect from 03.07.1992 by an order dated 23.11.1993.