IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of considering compelling circumstances, avoiding double jeopardy, and imposing proportionate punishment in service dismissal cases.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

Prayers made

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 12.12.2008 issued by respondent No. 4, whereby the petitioner’s husband, Anand Mistri, Police No. 449, was dismissed from service.

Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the appellate order dated 28.06.2010, passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi, whereby the appeal preferred by the husband of the petitioner was dismissed and the order of dismissal was affirmed.

Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 24.09.2008, whereby the husband of the petitioner was issued charge-sheet for abandoning his duty on 28.07.2008 and further for not reporting to the duty despite communication made by the Unit.

Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay the death-cum-retiral benefits to the petitioner on account of death of her husband.

Factual Matrix

3. The husband of the petitioner, Anand Mistry joined the Jharkhand Armed Police on 18.02.1988 and while he was posted in Jharkhand Armed Police-6, Jamshedpur, he went to withdrew money from ATM on 28.07.2008 but fell in a ditch and sustained injury in his leg and could not return to his duty. Thereafter, the Commandant sent a letter at the permanent address of petitioner on 06.08.2008 by post and again by personal service on 25.08.2008, which was received by petitioner but since her husband was not at home and she was unaware about his whereabouts, she could not inform him. Since the husband of the petitioner did not report for duty, a charge-sheet was issued to him vide memo dated 24.09.2008, by the Commandant, JAP-6 and it was alleged that he has abandoned his service and did not report for duty despite communication sent to him and further that he was a habitual leave-taker. On 27.10.2008, when the husband of the petitioner reported for his duty, he came to know about initiation of disciplinary proceeding and was asked to submit his reply. Accordingly, he submitted his reply wherein he stated that while going to ATM, he became very ill and was admitted in hospital with the help of locals and has prayed for mercy. However, the petitioner’s husband due to his ignorance could not produce medical certificate for the relevant period and instead submitted his previous prescriptions and therefore his explanation was rejected and proceeding was conducted, in which he was found guilty of the misconduct.

4. Thereafter, the Commandant, JAP-6 issued 2nd show-cause notice to petitioner’s husband and asked to show-cause as to why he should not be dismissed. It is stated that copy of enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner’s husband. The husband of the petitioner submitted the 2nd show-cause along with medical certificate and prescriptions. However, being not satisfied with the reply submitted by the husband of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority vide its order dated 12.12.2008, dismissed him from services. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the husband of the petitioner preferred appeal which also stood dismissed on 28.06.2010. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioners, who was suffering from various ailments, died on 25.11.2013.

After death of his husband, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court for redressal of her grievances.

Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner

5. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assiduously argues that the impugned orders are not tenable in the eyes of law since an employee cannot be punished by invoking his past record without specifically mentioning his previous record in the memo of charge. The order of punishment cannot be passed taking into account the previous misconduct which was not specifically mentioned in the memo of charge. Learned counsel further argues that the order of dismissal on the basis of previous misconduct amounts to double jeopardy as earlier the employee was