BHAGWAN DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 30th November, 1992 terminating the services of the husband of the petitioner and also to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the consequential benefits.

(2.) The husband of the petitioner joined Haryana Roadways in March, 1968. While working as a Driver in the Haryana Roadways, he met with an accident on 23.6.1988 and sustained injuries on the head and both bones of his right leg were fractured. He was admitted in the Hospital and remained under treatment till 14.2.1989. The husband of the petitioner joined the duty on 1.5.1989, but due to his injury to the right leg, he could not perform his duties efficiently. Thereafter he remained on leave from 25.2.1991 to 25.2.1992. Though the petitioner's husband requested the authorities to give him light work, the authorities of the respondent-department insisted that he should perform his duty as a Driver. The petitioner's husband made a representation to the authorities to permit him to take voluntary retirement on 1.10.1992, but his request was rejected. Thereafter the department instituted a departmental enquiry under Rule 7 of the Punishment and Appeal Rules. The enquiry proceeded ex parte and on the basis of the enquiry report, the husband of the petitioner was issued a show cause notice why his services should not be terminated. Thereafter the impugned order dated 30.11.1992 was passed by the authorities terminating the services of the petitioner's husband. The husband of the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent which was also dismissed on 11.10.1995. Subsequently, the petitioner's husband submitted another appeal to the Government. Meanwhile the husband of the petitioner died on 29.5.1996. After the death of the petitioner's husband, she approached the authorities to release the pension of her husband since her husband put in service of 24 years. Challenging the order of termination and seeking direction to release pension to the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

(3.) In the written statement, it is admitted that the petitioner's husband met with an accident and sustained injuries. But according to the respondents, the husband of the petitioner was declared medically fit for duty and, therefore, he was asked to perform his duty as a Driver, but the petitioner's husband pleaded lame excuses to perform his duty for which he was recruited. In spite of notice, the petitioner's husband was not present and, therefore, the enquiry was proceeded ex parte and on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer the services of the petitioner's husband were terminated and there are no grounds warranting interference with the same.