KUMUD BHATT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by Petitioner assailing order passed by Respondents dated 13.01.1995 by which her husband Ramesh Chand Bhatt was dismissed from services in disciplinary proceedings initiated on basis of charge-sheet issued to him for willful absence from duties. Petitioner's husband Ramesh Chand Bhatt was placed under suspension by order dated 10.11.1987 and thereafter a criminal case was registered against him on 09.06.1987 for offence under Section 420 IPC vide FIR No. 219/1987.

(2.) According to Respondents, Shri Ramesh Chand Bhatt last attended his duties with their office on 02.03.1988 and thereafter his whereabouts could not be known. In those facts when service of charge-sheet could not be affected on him, a notice was published in daily Hindi newspaper 'Dainik Navjyoti' (Ajmer edition) on 22.09.1994 clearly giving out that he should report on duties within fifteen days failing which ex-parte proceedings envisaged under Rule 19 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'CCA Rules') shall be initiated against him. Since Shri Ramesh Chand Bhatt did not attend duties nor any information was received about him, he was removed from service.

(3.) Shri P.C. Sharma, learned Counsel for Petitioner has argued that late husband of Petitioner was last attended Respondent's office on 02.03.1988 and thereafter his whereabouts could not be known. Even police in aforesaid first information report have been consistently maintaining that he could not be traced for many years and that it is not know where he has gone to. Leanred counsel submitted that as per Section 108 of Indian Evidence Act, a person who has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, he should be presumed to have died and considering him to be dead, proceedings that were held by Respondents under Rule 19 of the CCA Rules must be held to be nullity in law because no proceedings against dead person can be continued. It is further argued that Petitioner may be held entitled to receive family pension on expiry of period of one year from date he was last attended office of Respondents i.e. from 02.03.1989 in terms of proviso to Rule 268B of Rajasthan Service Rules and that order of his removal dated 13.01.1995 be quashed and set-aside and Petitioner should be held entitled to receive all terminal benefits/retiral benefits including general provident fund, gratuity, state insurance, arrears of salary, leave encahsment etc. together with interest. The Petitioner however stated that refusal by the Respondents for family pension was contrary to proviso of Rule 268B of the Rajasthan Service Rules which is reproduced as under: