JAGDEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the wife of late Shri Ram Aassre (Head Constable in the State Police Subordinate Services Jaipur City), has by way of this writ petition sought the relief with regard to payment of family pension and gratuity as well as other benefits following the death of her husband, to which he was entitled while serving in the department and on account of denial of such benefits this petition has been filed. THE question which is relevant for consideration is as to whether the petitioner and also other legal heirs of the deceased can be held entitled for the payment of family pension, gratuity and other consequential benefits as admissible to him had he continued in service till the age of superannuation but for the impugned order dated 26. 2. 1992 (Ann. 2) by which penalty of dismissed was imposed upon him.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner in short is that late Ram Aassre, has served as Head Constable in the Police Department Jaipur till his demise on 2. 3. 1992 and who left behind the petitioner, one daughter and four sons. None of them is earning member of the family as the petitioner and her minor children have been deprived of the family income to which the deceased was contributing but for his premature death.

(3.) THEREAFTER respondent No. 3 placed Ram Aassre and other three constables under suspension on 21. 3. 91. Charge sheet with summary of allegations was served upon them vide order dated 13. 5. 1991 to which Ram Aassre pleaded not guilty. Thereupon the Disciplinary Authority (respondent No. 3) appointed Dy. S. P. (Traffic) as Enquiry Officer, who after conducting the enquiry submitted his report on 30. 12. 1991. In this regard, it has been contended that neither the copy of the enquiry report was supplied nor any opportunity was given to the delinquent to explain the contents of the enquiry report, order of dismissal came to be passed on 26. 2. 1992. Thus, extreme penalty of dismissal was imposed on the petitioner's husband, who was even denied the opportunity to plead even on the quantum of punishment by the Disciplinary Authority. Before the said order came to be implemented, Ram Aassre expired on 2. 3. 1992, when he had not been relieved from his duties from the Police Lines, Jaipur City nor his name was struck of from the rolls of the department. His belt No. was never cancelled nor deposited in the department. Thus the dismissal order could not be implemented and the petitioner's case in this regard is, till the order is actually not implemented, the delinquent remains in service. Hence being in service, he was entitled to all the benefits as aforesaid in accordance with the Rules.