WP/28569/2008 of smt. K.Kamalamma, Vs The Superintendent of Police, on 30 December 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH

AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTPRESENTTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMEDand THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO : 28569 of 2008

Between:

Smt. K.Kamalamma, W/o. Purshotham,R/o. H.No.8-1-280, 16th Ward, Gollaguda Stage, Nalgonda-II (T),Nalgonda District.

..... PETITIONER

AND

1 The Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda District.

2 The Station House Officer,' Atmakur Village and Mandal, Atmakur, Nalgonda District.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularlyone in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating toO.A.No.3481 of 2005 on the file of the Hon'ble A.P. Admn.Tribunal,Hyderabad and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to theprovisions of A.P. (Revised) pension rules, 1980 and consequently directthe respondents herein to consider the case of the petitioner forappointment on compassionate grounds by duly paying the familypension, gratuity etc., and to grant Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.VENKAT YADAV

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME

The Court made the following :

ORDER:(per the Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ghulam Mohammed)

This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the award of theTribunal dated 01-11-2006 in O.A.No.3481 of 2005.

The applicant is the wife of a police constable who is underorder of dismissal. She approached the Tribunal to set aside theproceedings dated 24-08-2004 issued by the first respondent asillegal and arbitrary.

The case of the applicant is that her husband, while working aspolice constable, was missing from 12-07-2001. A criminal case wasfiled against him while he was in service. The applicant could nottrace out his whereabouts whether he is alive or dead. As thehusband of the applicant is missing since last more than four years ithas to be presumed that he is deemed to be dead, therefore, she isentitled for family pension. The applicant further submits thatimmediately after his missing, she made a complaint to the police andafter three years she made a representation to the authoritiesrequesting to release the gratuity and family pension since herhusband has put in more than 19 years of service. The respondentsrejected her request.

The respondents stated that the applicant’s husband was foundmissing from 12-07-2001. After a lapse of 1½ years, the applicanthas made a complaint to the police station about missing of herhusband. Accordingly, a case was registered in Crime No.46 of 2001and a final report was given in the said crime as undetected. Therespondents further submit that the applicant’s husband wasdismissed from service on 31-07-2002 and his name was struck offfrom the rolls with effect from 31-07-2002. As the applicant’shusband was visited with a punishment of dismissal from service, the applicant is not entitled to pensionary benefits and other retiralbenefits.

The Tribunal has considered this mater and observed that theapplicant’s husband was dismissed from service on 31-07-2002 as hefailed to report to the Wireless Operator, Radio Station, Bhongir, on30-04-1999 and created nuisance in a drunken state at the PoliceStation, Bhongir, and threw the tappal book. Accordingly,departmental enquiry was initiated and oral enquiry was conductedand held that the charge has proved. The disciplinary authorityagreeing with the report of the enquiry officer issued a show causenotice. But the said notice was not served as his whereabouts werenot known. Ultimately, the applicant’s husband was visited with apunishment of dismissal from service. Having regard to the facts andcircumstances, the Tribunal declined to grant the relief prayed by theapplicant.

Arguments

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since thepetitioner is a widow and her husband was missing and hiswhereabouts are not known and he was not aware of the dismissalorder, she should have been granted the family pension.

Admittedly, when a person is dismissed from service, thequestion of granting family pension does not arise. There is no errorof jurisdiction warranting interference of this Court under Article 226of the Constitution of India.

The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same isaccordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

____________________

GHULAM MOHAMMED, J

30[th] December, 2008

SKM

______________________

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J