MADAN, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who is the wife of late Shri Ram Aassre (Head Constable in the State Police Subordinate Services Jaipur City), has by way of this writ petition sought the relief with regard to payment of family pension and gratuity as well as other benefits following the death of her husband, to which he was entitled while serving in the department and on account of denial of such benefits this petition has been filed. THE question which is relevant for consideration is as to whether the petitioner and also other legal heirs of the deceased can be held entitled for the payment of family pension, gratuity and other consequential benefits as admissible to him had he continued in service till the age of superannuation but for the impugned order dated 26. 2. 1992 (Ann. 2) by which penalty of dismissed was imposed upon him.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner in short is that late Ram Aassre, has served as Head Constable in the Police Department Jaipur till his demise on 2. 3. 1992 and who left behind the petitioner, one daughter and four sons. None of them is earning member of the family as the petitioner and her minor children have been deprived of the family income to which the deceased was contributing but for his premature death. The deceased joined the services as a Constable with effect from 22. 11. 1966 and was promoted to the rank of Head Constable subsequently and continued as such till his death. He served the department for nearly 26 years with utmost devotion to his duties. Following his demise, the petitioner, being the widow of the deceased made a representation to the respondents for release of pensionary and allied benefits as admissible to her as per the provisions of Rules 260, 261 and 262 of the Rajasthan Service Rules (for short `the Rules') and other benefits as per Rajasthan (Recruitment of defendants of Government Servants Dying while in Service) Rules, 1975 (for short `the Rules of 1975') repealed by Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for short Rules, 1996 ). Further the petitioner's case is that she approached the respondent-department (respondents No. 2 & 3) several times for release of aforesaid benefit but all her efforts proved futile. Since she became aware of the fact that the respondents were not preparing the family pension case of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner's late husband was dismissed from police service by respondent No. 3 (The Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City, Jaipur) vide order dated 26. 2. 1992 following a departmental enquiry conducted against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1958 for short (`cca Rules' ). The petitioner submitted notice for demand of justice (Ann. 1) through her counsel but the same has yielded no result. Being aggrieved by the denial of family pension as well as other benefits to which the petitioner's late husband was entitled; had he continued in services, she has filed the instant writ petition. In reply to the show cause notice, the respondents have controverted the contentions of the petitioner, which I have perused also with reference to the contentions made in the additional affidavit of Mr. M. K. Govil, ASP, Jaipur City, Jaipur. In the writ petition it has been averred that late Ram Aassre was posted as Head Constable at Police Lines, Jaipur City at the relevant time from where he was deputed to S. M. S. Hospital, Jaipur as Supervisor in-charge (Guards ). He was instructed to watch the accused persons, who were admitted in the said hospital as indoor patients. Besides others, at the relevant time, one accused Shivram was admitted as indoor patient on 5. 3. 91. Constable Kailash Chand, Maharajsingh and Sunil Kumar were also deputed to watch accused Shivram in IC Ward, where he was admitted as aforesaid. As per the practice prevalent at the relevant time, all the three contables were performing their duties regularly. On 15. 3. 91 at about 7. 00 A. M. Constable Maharajsingh informed Ram Aassre that accused-Shivram was found missing from the Indoor IC Ward. Thereupon Ram Aassre made entry in the Register and sent all the three Constables for hot pursuit and search of the accused. Since Ram Aassre was incharge of other Guards, who were also watching the indoor patients (accused), so he made entry in the Register and sent the Constables for hot pursuit of accused Shivram. When all of them returned back without the accused, he got the case registered at Police Station Moti Doongri against accused Shivram. Entry was also made in the Rojnamacha. Later on accused was apprehended and challan was filed in the competent court for absconding from police custody as indoor patient in SMS Hospital, Jaipur.
(3.) THEREAFTER respondent No. 3 placed Ram Aassre and other three constables under suspension on 21. 3. 91. Charge sheet with summary of allegations was served upon them vide order dated 13. 5. 1991 to which Ram Aassre pleaded not guilty. Thereupon the Disciplinary Authority (respondent No. 3) appointed Dy. S. P. (Traffic) as Enquiry Officer, who after conducting the enquiry submitted his report on 30. 12. 1991. In this regard, it has been contended that neither the copy of the enquiry report was supplied nor any opportunity was given to the delinquent to explain the contents of the enquiry report, order of dismissal came to be passed on 26. 2. 1992. Thus, extreme penalty of dismissal was imposed on the petitioner's husband, who was even denied the opportunity to plead even on the quantum of punishment by the Disciplinary Authority. Before the said order came to be implemented, Ram Aassre expired on 2. 3. 1992, when he had not been relieved from his duties from the Police Lines, Jaipur City nor his name was struck of from the rolls of the department. His belt No. was never cancelled nor deposited in the department. Thus the dismissal order could not be implemented and the petitioner's case in this regard is, till the order is actually not implemented, the delinquent remains in service. Hence being in service, he was entitled to all the benefits as aforesaid in accordance with the Rules. Be that as it may, the case of respondents is that because of supervisory negligence, the accused had escaped from the custody of Ram Aassre and other three contables, who were actually looking after the accused while admitted in the hospital, who was apprehended subsequently though he had absconded from police custody. Having apprehended the accused subsequently and the petitioner's husband having made all sincere efforts to apprehend the accused, which is apparent from the fact that he had lodged the report immediately at Police Station Moti Doongri and also entered the same in the Police Diary (Rojnamcha), assuming that it was case of supervisory negligence, even then extreme penalty of dismissal from service was not warranted. Moreover, the order imposing the penalty had not been implemented as on the date (26. 2. 92) when the penalty was imposed, Ram Aassre was actually in active duty of the department. All these aspects were not taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority, who had proposed and imposed the punishment of dismissal of Ram Aassre from service under whom Ram Aassre was actually serving. The impugned order was also challenged on the ground that it was rather too harsh and laconic inasmuch as it does not contain any reason for dismissal from service and hence not sustainable in the eyes of law. The charges levelled against the husband of the petitioner could not even be proved from the enquiry report as regards charge No. 1, which was to the effect "that Ram Aassre was absent from duty" at the relevant point of time. In this regard, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer had specifically mentioned in his report that it was not proved that Ram Aassre was absent from duty. As regards charge No. 1, it has been contended that it pertains to supervisory negligence on the part of Ram Aassre. If Ram Aassre was absent from duty at the relevant time when Shivram had allegedly escaped from the custody from the concerned Ward of the hospital, where he was under treatment, then there would have been no occasion on his part to send immediate report with the concerned department and also to the police station Moti Doongri, where he not only immediately lodged the report but also made all sincere efforts to chase and apprehend the accused. Thus it is cannot be inferred that Ram Aassre was guilty of supervisory negligence on the allegation of charge No. 1. ;