P. B. Bajanthri, J.—Petitioner has assailed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (in short ‘CAT’) dated 12th February, 2016 passed in O.A. No. 050/00804/2014. Petitioner is wife of Late Rajesh Ram. She has assailed the order of dismissal of her husband from the post of Sweeper under Rule 19(ii) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 read with Rule 3(1)(ii) & (iii) and Rule 22 (b) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 dated 24.05.2011 and further sought for compassionate appointment against one of the Group D post.

2. Rajesh Ram-employee of the respondents declared to have been died after seven years from the date of missing. He was missing from 02.04.2007. The respondents tried to contact deceased employee by all modes including news item in Dainik Jagran on 17.07.2009, since there was no response. Resultantly, charge memo was issued on 13.08.2010 and on the same day inquiring officer and presenting officer were appointed. We have noticed that charge memo was not notified in the newspaper when the respondents could not serve a copy of the charge memo on the late employee through some mode. Employee could have been declared as dead only after seven years from the date of missing. If the date of missing is taken from 01.04.2007, it would be only after 01.04.2014 he could be declared as dead (civil death). Therefore, respondents should have resorted to publishing charge memo in the newspaper and notifying the same and it has not been resorted to. Further, on the date of issuance of charge memo, inquiring officer and presenting officer were appointed and it is not in accordance with law for the reasons that charge memo can be issued to an employee and on receipt of his explanation or reply, if any. If the disciplinary authority is not satisfied, in that event, he is permitted to hold enquiry by himself or appointing an inquiring officer and presenting officer. Further, appointment of the inquiring officer and presenting officer dated 13.08.2010 was withdrawn on 24.05.2011 and on the same day deceased employee had been dismissed. Respondents should have resorted to procedure for holding ex parte enquiry as mentioned in Para (4) under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 and it reads as under:—

“(4) Procedure for holding ex parte enquiry.—Whenever an official continues to remain absent from duty or overstays leave without permission and his movements are not known, or he fails to reply to official communications, the Disciplinary Authority may initiate action under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. In all such cases, the Competent Authority should, by a Registered A.D. letter addressed to the official at his last known address, issue a charge-sheet in the form prescribed for the purpose and call upon the official to submit a written statement of defence within a reasonable period to be specified by that authority. If the letter is received undelivered or if the letter having been delivered, the official does not submit a written statement of defence on or before the specified date or at a subsequent stage does not appear in person before the Inquiry Officer or otherwise, fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of CCS (CCA)Rules, the Inquiring Authority may hold an ex parte inquiry. The notices of all hearings should be served on the accused or communicated to him unless the first notice says that the inquiry will continue from day to day. In ex parte proceedings, the entire gamut of the enquiry has to be gone through. The notices to witnesses should be sent, the documentary evidences should be produced and marked, the Presenting Officer should examine the prosecution witnesses and the Inquiring Authority may put such questions to the witnesses as it thinks to be fit. The Enquiring Authority should record the reasons why he is proceeding ex parte and what steps he had taken to ask the accused official to take part in the enquiry and avail of all the opportunities available under the provisions of Rule 14 of the CCS (C