MAYA DEVI @ MAYA SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

(2.) Petitioner is the widow of the employee, who she contends, has been missing since 23.04.2010. However, according to her, Respondent no.5 has conducted departmental proceeding in his absence and dismissed him from service by the impugned order bearing memo no. 441 dated 30.06.2014(Annexure-4) in violation of principle of natural justice, more so, when nothing has been heard about the employee since last more than 7 years by now. Petitioner contends that a sanha was also lodged on 21.05.2010 at Baghbera Police Station (Annexure-1). Petitioner submits that order of dismissal has been challenged before the appellate authority i.e., Respondent no. 4 but the same has not yet been decided. Other grounds on merits have also been urged.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent State has defended the impugned order on merits on the basis of the stand taken in the counter affidavit. He has also contested the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the basis of the departmental circular where claim for compassionate appointment on the ground of missing of an employee cannot be entertained. However, Respondent State do not dispute that appeal preferred by the petitioner has not yet been decided. The memo of appeal is enclosed as Annexure-5 in support of the submission made in para 10 of the writ petition.