A dismissal order attains finality when not challenged during the employee's lifetime, and delay in filing a writ petition lacks sufficient justification.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

8 09-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State.

2. The present writ application has been filed by the sole nominee and widow of Late Kishundhan Ram who was working since March, 1981 and was due to retire on 31.03.2008, but removed from service with effect from 27.02.2008, 32 days prior to his normal retirement on the ground that in course of verification of Training Certificate i.e. Original Certificate and mark-sheet, it was found that the name of the husband of the petitioner was not found in the Admission Register of Primary Teachers Education College, Purnea in Session 1972-74 as also the name of the husband of the petitioner was not found in the Tabulation Register of 1972-74. Further based on a Letter No.16 dated 14.02.2008 a report was submitted by the Sub-Divisional Education Officer and based on the same, the Establishment Committee had taken a decision to remove the service of the husband of the petitioner, as such the service of the husband of the petitioner was directed to be terminated by Memo No.519 dated 27.02.2008. It is this termination order which has been questioned in the present writ application by the widow of Late Kishundhan Ram, admittedly after nine years from the date of passing of the termination order.

3. During the course of argument the following facts have emerged as admitted facts:

(i) it is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner was dismissed on

27.02.2008;

(ii) it is also not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner expired on

22.04.2013;

(iii) it is also not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner never chose to challenge the dismissal order during the period of five years when he was alive;

(iv) it is further not in dispute that the widow of Late Kishundhan Ram has challenged the dismissal order after nearly nine years.

4. During the course of hearing, on 04.12.2025 a specific query was posed to learned counsel for the petitioner as to “why this Court should allow the widow of Late Kishundhan Ram to question the dismissal order after nearly a decade, particularly when the husband of the petitioner had the occasion for nearly five years to challenge the order of dismissal passed against him on 27.02.2008 and he chose not to challenge the same, thereby allowing the dismissal order to attain finality?”

5. Responding to the aforesaid query made by this Court on 04.12.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner had approached this Court in 2015 by filing a writ application bearing CWJC No.7004 of 2015 claiming retiral benefits and the said writ application was disposed of on 19.01.2017 (Annexure-9) in which the following order was passed.

“After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the present writ application in order to assail the office order bearing Memo No. 519 dated 27.02.2008 passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Supaul by filing a separate writ application.

Leave is granted.

The writ application is disposed of.”

6. He, therefore, submits that leave was granted by this Court to the petitioner to challenge the order of termination contained in Memo No.519 dated 27.02.2008. Apart from this learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the intervening period i.e. 27.02.2008 till 22.04.2013 the husband of the petitioner was facing criminal proceeding initiated by the department and therefore, during his lifetime the husband of the petitioner could not approach this Court for challenging the termination order. In the criminal proceeding it is stated that on16.08.2011, the husband of the petitioner surrendered in Jadiya P.S. Case No.20 of 2008 in which charge sheet was submitted in 2012.

7. The explanation subm