MANJU DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for quashing order dated 16.05.2006, whereby the husband of the petitioner was dismissed from services w.e.f 12.05.2006 and further for direction upon the respondents to pay the death-cum-retiral benefit of the petitioner.

(2.) The factual exposition, as has been delineated in the writ application, is that the husband of the petitioner was working as constable. During his continuance in service, the husband of the petitioner was sent for SPC Training at JAP-5, Deoghar. During the course of training, on 05.08.2005, he fell ill and accordingly he was treated by the doctor of the Force, who advised him for three days rest and accordingly, the husband of the petitioner on 06.08.2005 went to his native place for proper rest but as the condition of the husband of the petitioner was deteriorated, he could not join the duty after three days. Thereafter, the respondent no. 6 declared him absconder for remaining unauthorized absent from duty and accordingly an order was issued vide memo dated 24.08.2005, by which, the salary of the husband of the petitioner was withheld. Thereafter, he was put under suspension. In the meantime, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by issuing charge-sheet vide memo dated 06.09.2005, which culminated to dismissal from services vide order dated 16.05.2006 w.e.f 12.05.2006.

(3.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the husband of the petitioner has been dismissed from services without initiating any departmental proceeding and making any enquiry under Rule 843 of the Bihar Police Manual. Referring to Rule 843 of the Police Manual, learned senior counsel submitted that absence from duty for sufficient reason is not a misconduct as per Rule 843 of the Police Manual and in the case in hand, the petitioner fell ill, hence, he could not join his duties. It has further been submitted that before passing the impugned order of dismissal from services, even no second show cause notice was issued. It has further been submitted that the impugned order of dismissal from services is harsh since the husband of the petitioner was seriously ill and ultimately died on 04.03.2010 due to prolonged illness.