The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 2857 of 2022 Asha Devi … … … PETITIONER - V E R S U S - 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Ranchi 4. The Commissioner, Palamau Division, Palamau, having office at Palamau, P.O. and P.S. – Medininagar, Palamau 5. The Accountant General (A & E), Jharkhand, Doranda, Ranchi … … … RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK
Legal Reasoning
For the Petitioner :Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, Advocate For the Respondents :Mr. Sarabhil Ahmad, AC to SC (Mines) For the R. No. 5 :Ms. Riya Narain, Advocate 10/14.06.2023 Heard . 2. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the resolution dated 30.10.2018, passed by the respondent no. 3 by which her husband was dismissed from the services on the ground of conviction in a criminal case. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the 33rd Combined Competitive Examination, her husband was selected and posted in the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar. Vide Memo No. 9845, dated 28.07.1989 of the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Bihar. Thereafter, having put a satisfactory service, petitioner’s name was considered for promotion to the post of IAS in order of seniority. 4. It is specific case of the petitioner that when her husband was posted as BDO, Simdega in between 30.05.2003 to 03.02.2006, in the financial year 2004 – 05, a sum of Rs.10,23,600/- was allotted for construction of twelve ponds under disaster management 2245 “Daivik Bipati”to provide employment to unemployed persons vide letter no. 428(ii) Go, dated 19.03.2005. The cost fixed for construction of one pond was Rs.85,300/-. One Amrican Ravidas, the then Block RC 2 Development Officer, Simdega, vide Treasury Bill No. 92/2004 – 05, T.V. No. 03, Dated 31.03.2005, withdrawn the entire money from the State Bank of India, Simdega. When the matter came to the knowledge of the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega, he authorised the Additional Collector, Simdega to make an enquiry and submit the report. After the enquiry, the Additional Collector, Simdega found that total 12 ponds were to be constructed but petitioner’s husband failed to construct even a single sanctioned pond and withdrew entire amount of Rs.10,23,600/- from the Government account. By this act, petitioner’s husband defalcated entire amount of Rs.10,23,600/- by encashing the allotment through Treasury Bill No. 92/04 – 05 T.V. No. 3/31.03.2005. In this regard, matter was sent to the Government for obtaining prosecution sanction vide letter no. 1728, dated 27.03.2008 and thereafter, the prosecution sanction was granted to proceed the case against him. The then Block Development Officer, Simdega was authorized to lodge the case against him and thereafter, an FIR being Simdega P.S. Case No. 67/2008, dated 12.06.2008, for the offence under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega and cognizance was taken against the petitioner. After trial, the Court below convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of conviction and sentence, petitioner’s husband preferred an Appeal on the ground of certain anomalies. The said contention of the petitioner’s husband was not appreciated and on the basis of evidence on record, conviction was affirmed and appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, he preferred Criminal Revision No. 550 of 2018 before this Court which is pending. In view of conviction in criminal case, proceeding was initiated against the husband of the petitioner and in the departmental proceeding, he was dismissed from the service. 6. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that after six years of Judgment of conviction and sentence, petitioner’s husband died on 07.03.2022. Earlier petitioner’s husband had moved before this RC 3
Decision
Court in W.P.(S) No. 5925 of 2018, which was disposed of on account of his death during pendency of the writ petition. Present writ petition has been filed by petitioner after death of her husband assailing impugned order of dismissal and for payment of family pension. 7. Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikharwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vociferously argues that though deceased husband of the petitioner was convicted in a criminal case and simultaneously dismissed from the service, his wife is entitled for the family pension. Learned counsel further submits that against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, Appeal was preferred which stood dismissed. Thereafter, the revision has been preferred which is pending before this Court. During pendency of the said revision, petitioner’s husband died and as such petitioner is suffering a great hardship. Learned counsel submits that since revision is still pending, the respondents may be directed to consider case of the petitioner for grant of family pension sympathetically. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s husband was not involved in any misappropriation of government money and his revision is pending. The respondents ought to have considered his case sympathetically. Drawing attention of this Court learned counsel submits that petitioner has been able to demonstrate that her husband was in no way involved in defalcation. Learned counsel further submits that husband of the petitioner died due to cancer and as such a sympathetic view may be taken to consider her case for grant of family pension. 8. Mr. Sarabhil Ahmad, learned counsel representing State vehemently opposes contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that admittedly petitioner’s husband had been convicted in a criminal case. In view of conviction, he was dismissed from the service. Learned counsel further argues that in no way petitioner is entitled for family pension. Law is well settled that once an employee is dismissed from the service on the ground of conviction only when conviction is set aside, the case can be reconsidered. Petitioner has approached this Court hurriedly during pendency of the criminal revision for getting family pension. The writ petition is not RC 4 maintainable and may be dismissed in limine. Learned counsel further submits that it is open for the petitioner to move before the authorities concerned only after a decision is passed in her favour in criminal revision. Writ petition is pre-mature and as such the same is fit to be dismissed. 9. Mr. Riya Narain, learned counsel representing Accountant General very fairly submits that the role of accountant general can only come in picture when there is direction of the State Government to pay pension or family pension, as the case may be. Only after recommendation of the State, the family pension is allowed. 10. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for interference. Admittedly, petitioner’s husband was dismissed from the service on account of conviction. He preferred appeal but the same also stood dismissed. Criminal revision has been preferred and the same is still pending before this Court. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that a sympathetic view may be taken as petitioner has lost her husband due to cancer and she has no source of income, is not acceptable to this Court. Sympathy has no role to play in court cases. Once an employee has been convicted and sentenced, unless the conviction is set aside, no reconsideration can be shown to the order of dismissal. Even the criminal revision is still pending. No interference is warranted in this writ petition and as such the same is hereby dismissed. However, petitioner is at liberty to approach before the respondents after getting final order in criminal revision pending before this Court. 11. The writ petition stands dismissed. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC