Rajpur, P.S. – Sanjhauli, District – Rohtas, Bihar v. 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, having office at
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 574 of 2022 Usha Rai, aged about 38 years, wife of Late Krishna Kumar, resident of Village : Chhulkar, P.O. : Rajpur, P.S. – Sanjhauli, District – Rohtas, Bihar. … Appellant Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, having office at Police Headquarters, HEC, P.O. & P.S. – Dhurwa, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, having office at Police Headquarters, HEC, P.O. & P.S. – Dhurwa, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. Commandant, IRB-5, Gumla Camp HQ – Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. – Dhurwa, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand. … Respondents ---------
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Appellant For the Respondents -------- : Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate. Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate. : Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, A.C. to AAG-III. --------- Order No. 05/Dated: 06th August, 2024 I.A. No. 5164 of 2024. 1. Heard Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, learned A.C. to AAG-III for the respondents-State. 2. This interlocutory application has been preferred by the appellant for condoning the delay of 161 days in filing the appeal. 3. Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the instant application, the same is allowed and the delay of 161 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Page 1 of 5 4.
Decision
I.A. No. 5164 of 2024 stands disposed of. L.P.A. No. 574 of 2022 5. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3313 of 2020, whereby and whereunder the prayer of the writ petitioner for setting aside the order of termination of her husband and grant of compassionate appointment on account of the death of her husband have been rejected. 6. It has been submitted by Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner / appellant that the departmental proceeding was held ex-parte and no opportunity of hearing was given to the husband of the writ petitioner. It has further been submitted that the writ petitioner was having some medical issues which though was subsequently brought to the notice of the concerned authorities, but the same did not evoke any positive response and the husband of the writ petitioner was terminated from service. 7. Learned counsel has further stated that Rule 843 of the Jharkhand Police Manual has not been properly followed and only on account of unauthorized absence from duty for a period of 78 days, the husband of the writ petitioner has been imposed a major penalty of dismissal from service. It has been stated that the order passed by Page 2 of 5 the learned Single Judge has forfeited the right of the appeal to the appellant. 8. Learned AC to AAG-III has submitted that the husband of the writ petitioner was a habitual offender and several major punishments have been imposed upon him for the unauthorized absence from duty and being in a disciplined force, it was necessary for the authorities to have passed an order of dismissal. It has further been submitted that despite repeated reminders and notices, the husband of the writ petitioner did not appear before the departmental authority and as a consequence of which, an ex-parte enquiry was conducted and finally a major punishment of dismissal from service was imposed upon him. 9. The factual aspects of the case reveal that the husband of the writ petitioner was employed as a Constable in IRB-5, Gumla Camp Headquarters, Dhurwa, Ranchi. He had proceeded on Casual Leave on 19.01.2018 till 31.01.2018 for a period of 12 days and he was directed to join duty on 01.02.2018, but he did not join and continued to remain unauthorizedly absent for a period of 78 days. 10. Though, in the writ application reference has been made about the mental health of the husband of the writ petitioner, which prevented him from joining his duty within time, but it is also an admitted fact that in spite of repeated reminders and initiation of departmental proceedings, the husband of the writ petitioner chose not to appear, as a result of which, the proceeding was decided ex-parte Page 3 of 5 and order of dismissal was passed against him. Moreover, it appears that the husband of the writ petitioner had a chequered service career as several major and minor punishments were imposed upon him and in 10 years of service, he had over stayed 11 times. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has failed to indicate any procedural irregularity or illegality with respect to the holding of the departmental inquiry. 11. So far as, the punishment of dismissal is concerned, the same appears to be in commensuration with the charges framed against the delinquent employee and in such circumstances also, no fault lies with the department for passing an order of dismissal. 12. So far as the plea of learned counsel for the writ petitioner / appellant that the order passed in writ application has forfeited her right to appeal, the same does not hold good simply for the reason that the writ petitioner, who had not availed of her alternative remedy of appeal prior to invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court and once an order has been passed, adverse to the cause of the writ petitioner, it would be exercise in futility to relegate the writ petitioner to the appellate authority. 13. So far the claim of compassionate appointment is concerned, the same is always dependent on the fate of the order of dismissal from service of the husband of the writ petitioner and since the impugned order dated 11.05.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3313 of 2020 Page 4 of 5 has dismissed the prayer of the writ petitioner against the order of dismissal of her husband, the question of compassionate appointment does not arise. 14. We, therefore, affirm the order dated 11.05.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3313 of 2020 and consequently, dismiss this appeal. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Sunil-Simran/ (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Page 5 of 5