MANJULABAI B SALVI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the wife of one Shri Babu Laxman Salvi who was working as a "hamal" with the Bombay Municipal Corporation ("the Corporation") at the B. Y. L. Nair Hospital, Bombay Central. He served the Corporation for 32 years. However, on 6 April, 1982 he disappeared and he is not traceable since then. It is stated that on that day though he went on duty as usual, he did not return back to his home and since then despite all efforts his where abouts could not be traced.

(2.) A notice was addressed by the Corporation to the husband of the petitioner to resume duty. On his failure to do so, a preliminary enquiry was conducted in his absence and it was found that failure to resume duty amounted to misconduct. A formal enquiry was, therefore, initiated against him. No charge-sheet, could be served on him as he was not traceable. The enquiry was conducted and completed in his absence. He was found guilty of remaining absent without leave. The Enquiry Officer in his report observed that the deliquent had put in 32 years of service; he had not at all been punished in the past. He recommended that the delinquent Babu Laxman Salvi be removed from service and his absence from 1 April, 1982 to 30 June, 1985 be treated as absence without leave. The Enquiry Officer further observed that taking into consideration that the deliquent Babu Laxman Salvi had been lost from April 1982 and his wife could not trace him and that it was not known whether he was alive or not, a lenient view might be taken and payment might be made of 2/3rd compassionate pension and gratutity. Orders were passed by the Corporation accordingly on 30 September, 1987. The petitioner who is wife of the concerned employee has challenged the above order as well as the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer by this writ petition.

(3.) I have carefully considered above order. There is no dispute about the fact that even today the employee concerned is not traceable and it is not known whether he is alive or dead. The same was the position in the year 1989 when the enquiry report was submitted. The learned Counsel for the Corporation could not show that they have got any information about the concerned employee even today. Long 12 years have passed without any trace of the missing employee. Even on the date of the report of the Enquiry officer, 7 years had passed. In such a case it could have been presumed that he is dead. In such circumstances, in my opinion, it was not proper on the part of the Enquiry Officer to recommend his removal from service and direct payment of part of pension and gratuity only. The Corporation was also not justified in passing the order of removal dated 30 September, 1987.