The acquittal in a criminal case can lead to a reconsideration of entitlement to post-retirement benefits and compassionate appointment, especially when the dismissal was solely based on the conviction.

JUDGMENT

Pramath Patnaik, J. – In the accompanied writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the office order dated 07.07.2004 issued by the respondent no.4 dismissing the husband of petitioner from services and for quashing the letter dated 10.08.2013 issued by the said respondent refusing the claim of compassionate appointment, the arrears of salary and death-cum-retiral benefits including full pension. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to review/recall the dismissal order of husband of petitioner and to provide compassionate appointment to any of the family members along with payment of death-cum-retiral benefits and full pension.

2. The fact, as disclosed in the writ petition, in brief, is that the husband of petitioner, namely, late Ram Nath Pandey was appointed as Munshi Grade II in Keshargarh Colliery on 29.11.1972. Subsequently, his designation was changed from Munshi Grade II to Magazine Incharge Grade II in the year 1987. Thereafter, the husband of petitioner was promoted to the post of Special Grade Clerk, as is evident from Annexure-2 to the writ petition. During the year 1985-86, an occurrence of misappropriation of explosive and detonators in Damoda and Kessurgarh Magazine was detected. The matter was referred to CBI and the CBI registered a case bearing R.C. no.21 of 1986. After investigation, the CBI filed charge sheet in the year 1987-88 in which the name of husband of petitioner appeared since at the relevant time he was clerk in Kessurgarh Magazine. The husband of petitioner was put to trial and in trial, the husband of petitioner was convicted by the Special Judge, CBI and was sentenced to imprisonment for two years besides fine of Rs. 1000/-. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction, the husband of petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal(SJ) no.1299 of 2003 before this Court and vide order dated 17.09.2003 provisional bail was granted to husband of petitioner. In view of conviction and the criminal case, a departmental charge sheet was served on the husband of petitioner for misconduct under clause 25.1.19 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company, which reads as under:-

"Conviction by a Court of law for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude"(Annexure-4 to the writ petition).

The only misconduct against Late Ram Nath Pandey was the conviction dated 25.08.2003 and the explanation was called for from the husband of petitioner late Ram Nath Pandey, who submitted his explanation on 16.10.2003. The enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report to disciplinary authority, namely, Project Officer/Agent Block II, O.C.P.Mines. However, the copy of the enquiry report was never served upon the husband of petitioner nor he was ever given a second show cause notice to show any cause after the enquiry report and before imposing punishment and Late Ram Nath Pandey was dismissed from service vide order dated 07.07.2004 on account of his conviction in criminal case, as is evident from Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Against the order of conviction, the husband of petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal bearing Cr.Appeal(SJ) no.1299 of 2003 and vide judgment dated 23.11.2012, the husband of petitioner was acquitted from all charges and his conviction and sentence was set aside and the criminal appeal was allowed. Before the judgment of the criminal appeal, the husband of petitioner died on 02.08.2011. It has been submitted in the writ petition that if late Ram Nath Pandey would not have died on 02.08.2011, he would have remained in service as per his service records. Late Ram Nath Pandey has left behind the petitioner as widow and two sons. After order of acquittal, the petitioner has submitted several representations including representation dated 25.02.2013 vide Annexure-10 to the writ petition and on the representation of petitioner, a letter was issued by respondent no.4 dated 10.08.2013 stating therein that gratuity sha