Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Veena Kamboj Wife Of Sh. Satish Kumar vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 10 March, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH. O.A.No.1124/HR/2013 Date of Decision : 10.03.2014 Reserved on 06.03.2014 CORAM: HONBLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER HONBLE DR. BRAHM A. AGRAWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Veena Kamboj wife of Sh. Satish Kumar, aged 37 years, resident of House No.341-B, Chopra Garden, B-Block, Yamuna Nagar-135001. Applicant Versus 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. 2. Chief Engineer (Civil), Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. 3. Chief Post Master General, Haryana Circle, Ambala. 4. Superintending Engineer (Civil), Postal Civil Circle, Department of Post, Civil Wing, Ambala. 5. Executive Engineer (Civil), Postal Civil Circle, Department of Post, Civil Wing, Ambala. . Respondents Present: Mr. Rohit Sharma, counsel for the applicant Mrs. Mohinder Gupta, counsel for the respondents O R D E R
HONBLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A)
1. This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:-
8 (a) Quash the order dated 21.05.2009 (Annexure A-1) as conveyed to the applicant vide letter dated 25.03.2013 (Annexure A-2) vide which the husband of the applicant Sh. Satish Kumar has been dismissed from service ignoring the fact that order of dismissal could not come about as the employee is missing since night 05.09.2005 for which D.D.R. was lodged on 07.09.2005 which was converted in F.I.R. on 12.09.2005 and Police has given its untraceable report on 29.11.2012.
(b) Issue direction to the respondents to grant the applicant benefits of retiral dues like General Provident Fund and family pension GPF, leave encashment, salary for the month of September, 2005 (period on which he was on duty) and other benefits as available in case of missing employees from due date with all consequential benefits including arrears with interest @ 18% per annum from the date the amount became due to the actual date of payment.
2. Brief facts of the matter are that one Sh. Satish Kumar, husband of the present applicant was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) under the respondent Department in 1997 and worked as such with the Department till 05.09.2005 after which he went missing. D.D.R. was lodged in the Local Police Station at Jalandhar about the employee being missing since 05.09.2005 and this D.D.R. was converted into F.I.R. dated 12.09.2005 (Annexure A-6). Representations were submitted time and again by the family members of the missing employee that action be taken to search for him but no clue was found as reported by PS Division No.IV, Jalandhar on 12.04.2009. The applicant then submitted a representation dated 11.12.2012 (Annexure A-12) followed by reminder dated 18.03.2013 (Annexure A-13) that her husband is missing and has been found to be untraceable by the Police. Thus, she may be released all the dues like Provident Fund, DCRG, leave encashment and salary for the month of September, 2005 for the period he remained on duty and she may be sanctioned pension also. She was informed vide letter dated 22.03.2013 (Annexure A-14) that her case has been sent to CPMG, Haryana and decision will be intimated. However, inspite of reminders, no action had been taken in the matter. Hence this OA.
3. In the grounds for relief, it has been stated that under the instructions issued by the Govt. of India from time to time under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 including memo dated 25.06.2013 (Annexure A-22 Colly.) The applicant is entitled to gratuity and family pension etc on account of the service rendered by her husband before having been gone missing since 2005. Besides, similar controversy had arisen in OA No.550/PB/2012 titled Anuma Bala Vs. UOI etc. decided on 19.10.2012 (Annexure A-21) commanding the respondents to get the papers qua family pension etc completed from the applicant and sanction her family pension and arrears as per rules and law.
4. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that O/o Executive Engineer (C) Ambala addressed Sh. Satish Kumar, JE (C) vide letter No.EE(C)/P/AB/3945-47 dated 09.12.2005 to report for duty (at his home address failing which action against him could be taken. He was again addressed on 29.12.2005 and 13.11.2006 to report for duty but all in vain. On 18.03.2008, Sr. Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar was addressed to intimate the latest development of the case. Neither any reply from Police Authority was received nor Sh. Satish Kumar JE (C) reported and on 14.04.2009 press notices were also issued in Dainik Bhaskar and The Tribune. It was made clear in the press notices that Sh. Satish Kumar should personally appear before Executive Engineer (C) Ambala within 15 days of publication of said notice failing which disciplinary action would be initiated against him under the rules. Even after expiry of period of press notice and after issue of letters as detailed. Sh. Satish Kumar did not report for duty nor any communication was received from him and no police untraceable report was received by the Department. Under the circumstances, disciplinary authority had no option but to initiate the proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules and issue a charge sheet vide letter No.1/(522) SE (C)/PCC/AB/24 dated 05.02.2009. The official was also given reasonable opportunity of being heard in person or to submit his written statement of defence within 10 days of receipt of same. As Sh. Satish Kumar did not respond, he was again offered an opportunity on 25.03.2009 to make his written statement of defence or to appear in person within 15 days but of no avail. Disciplinary authority imposed upon Sh. Satish Kumar, JE (C)Jalandhar, the penalty of dismissal on 21.05.2009 ex parte.
5. On 11.12.2012 after lapse of more than 7 years, Smt. Veena Kumari w/o Sh. Satish Kumar submitted an application for family pension and other retirement benefits along with photocopy of F.I.R. (In Punjabi) and untraceable report from Police Station, New Baradari, Jalandhar. As per Govt. of India No.(11) below Rule 54 of CCS (Pension) Rules, in such cases family pension can be sanctioned from the date of lodging of F.I.R. i.e 12.09.2005. But these benefits were not claimed prior to 11.12.2012 by Smt. Veena Kumari w/o Sh. Satish Kumar and penalty of dismissal was imposed on 21.05.2009. Consequent upon the imposition of penalty of dismissal, past service stands forfeited under Rule 24 of CCS (Pension) Rules. The applicant i.e. Veena Kumari w/o Sh. Satish Kumar was supplied a copy of the Charge sheet and dismissal orders dated 21.05.2009. Applicant made a representation to Chief Engineer (C), Postal New Delhi on 14.05.2013 and had filed the present OA before receiving the decision of Chief Engineer (C) Delhi in this regard.
6. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties were heard. Learned counsel for the applicant reiterated the facts and grounds taken in the OA and cited Asha Rani Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. in CWP No.15476 of 2006, decided on 20.09.2011, where in a similar case, directions had been issued to the respondent Department that the petitioner and / or the children of the missing employee shall be entitled to service / terminal benefits including Gratuity, GPF, Leave Encashment etc. and the arrears of family pension and other service benefits be released within a period of three months from the disposal of the petition.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the averments made in the written statement.
8. We have carefully considered the matter with particular reference to the pleadings of the parties, the material on record and the rules and case law cited by the learned counsel. It is evident that the husband of the applicant has been missing since 06.09.2005 and untraceable report has been provided by the Police Authorities initially in 2009 and thereafter in 2012. Hence the action of the respondents in dismissing the missing employee from service is not in consonance with the rules and instructions in this regard and the impugned dismissal order dated 21.05.2009 is quashed.
9. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the applicant for release of family pension and other retiral benefits in favour of the applicant, keeping in view the instructions of the Govt. of India regarding payment of retirement gratuity and family pension to the family in case of officials whose whereabouts are not known issued vide OM No.1/17/86-P&PW, dated 29.08.1986, OM No.1/17/86-P.&PW (C), dated 25.01.1991 and OM No.1(17)-P & PW/86-E, dated 18.02.1993 (clarifications as per note 9, 11 and 12 under Rule 54 of Swamys CCS (Pension) Rules. The payment of arrears of family pension and dues on account of GPF, Gratuity, Leave Encashment etc. may be made within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order being served upon the respondents no.2, 3, 4 and 5. Any delay beyond this period will entitle the applicant to interest @ 18% on the dues upto the date when payment is actually made. No costs.
(RAJWANT SANDHU) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER.
(DR. BRAHM A. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER Place: Chandigarh Dated: 10.03.2014 sv: