JUDGMENT

I.M. QUDDUSI, J. — The petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties for payment of Family Pension to her under Rule-56 (19) of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 by setting Order No.5 dated 12.10.2006 passed in O.A.No.1999 (C) of 2006 by the Orissa Admin¬istrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack.

2. The husband of the petitioner namely, Late Ramesh Ch. Pradhan was working as Senior Assistant in the Office of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (N.D.), Sambalpur and was suffering from mental depression from time to time and undergoing treatment at the V.S.S. Medical College and Hospital Burla in Psychiatric Department. On 20.2.1993 he resumed duty after being found fit and was attending office regularly. On 28.5.1993, he left his quarter to attend the morning office but did not come back. On enquiry by his wife, it was revealed that he did not attend the office on 28.5.93. A search was started for him in all probable places but he could not be located. During search, it was revealed that he visited Gopalijee Math near Samleswari Temple on 29.6.93 and took “PRASAD” and spent night there. But thereafter his whereabouts were not known. A First Information Report was lodged in Dhanupali Police Station in the district of Sambalpur by the son of the petitioner namely, Susanta Ku. Prad¬han on 31.5.93 and at that time, his father’s age was 48 years. The petitioner informed the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (ND), Sambalpur vide application dated 31.12.1997 to the effect that her husband namely, Ramesh Ch. Pradhan, who was working in the office since 28.7.64 suffered from psychiatric trouble from early 1990 and was under treatment and was periodically declared fit to perform his official duties. But all of a sudden, he, on 28.5.93, left the house for the office in the morning as usual but did not return and that her son lodged missing person report in Dhanupali Police Station with a copy to the Superintendent of Police, Sam¬balpur. Although police took all possible steps to trace out him but in vain. She also informed that she and her son were leading pitiable life due to lack of income source and requested for family pension. But in the meaning, a charge-sheet was issued against the late husband of the petitioner calling his explana¬tion and written statement of defence as to why he may not be dismissed from Government service or otherwise be suitably pun¬ished for the lapses committed by him i.e., the absence from duty. The memo of charge was pasted at the quarters of the peti¬tioners husband but as her husband had already disappeared, nobody was there to give reply. On 3.1.98, through newspaper also by way of advertisement, copies of the proceedings were pub¬lished. Thereafter, as usual in the absence of any explanation, the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, vide his order dated 7.2.98, removed the late husband of the petitioner from service and in the order or removal from service, it was mentioned that in spite of thorough search by the Superintendent of Police, Sambalpur by way of publication in the weekly Crime Bulletin vide his office bulletin No.23/98 and publication through C.I.D., C.B., Orissa, Cuttack, the whereabouts of the delinquent is not yet traced out as reported by S.P., Sambalpur vide his letter No.6899/CR dated 19.10.1995 and presumption was drawn that he had absconded from duty. The relevant parts of the impugned order dated 7.2.98 are quoted as under.

“xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx

In spite of thorough search by the Superintendent of Police, Sambalpur by way of publication in the weekly Crime Bulletin vide his office bulletin No.23/98 and publication through C.I.C., C.B., Orissa, Cuttack, the whereabouts of the delinquent is not yet traced out as reported by S.P., Sambalpur vide his letter No.6899/CR dated 19.10.1995.

xx xx xx xx xx

It is revealed from the report of his son Sri Susanta Kumar Pradhan submitted on 31.5.93 and copy of the F.I.R. lodged