Order Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner who is the wife of Bhikhu Mahto, has challenged the order dated 11.4.96 issued by the respondent BCCL. whereby the husband of the petitioner was dismissed from service in a departmental proceeding. 3. The husband of the petitioner, Bhikhu Mahto, was in the service of the respondent-BCCL at Mohuda. Petitioner's case is that he left home for duty on 27.5.91 but he never returned. A criminal case was lodged at the local police station at Mahuda on 12.7.91. After waiting for about 7 years the petitioner approached this court by filling CWJC No. 1272/98R seeking employment on compassionate ground in place of her husband who was missing since 1991. The said writ application was contested by the respondents on the ground that there is no provision for giving appointment on compassionate ground to any of the wards of a missing employee of BCCL. It was further stated that since the petitioner's husband was missing since long, he was dismissed from service on 11.4.96. The stand of the petitioner was that she was neither served with a copy of dismissal order nor a copy of the same was furnished to the petitioner. 4. In view of the facts stated by the parties, the petitioner was allowed to withdraw the writ application with liberty to challenge the order of dismissal of her husband from service and hence this writ application challenging the said dismissal order and for her appointment on compassionate ground. 5. In the instant case the stand of the respondents is that the petitioner's husband was dismissed from service by order dated 11.4.96 in a departmental proceeding on the charge of remaining absent from duty for so many years. It is stated that charge sheet was issued on 6.8.93 for the charge of absenting from duty without information and sufficient cause from 21.3.91 and a memo of charge was sent to the petitioner by registered post. It is further stated that no reply/explanation was received from the petitioner's husband as a result of which the competent authority appointed an Enquiry Officer who conducted ex parte enquiry and order of dismissal was passed. 6. As noticed above the respondent conducted ex parte enquiry and order of dismissal was passed. It is further stated that no reply/explanation was received from the petitioner's husband as a result of which the competent authority appointed an Enquiry Officer who conducted ex parte enquiry and order of dismissal was passed. 6. As noticed above the respondent conducted ex parte enquiry and order of dismissal was passed. Neither the respondents have contended that the memo of charge or the notice of inquiry was personally served upon the petitioner or her husband, nor is there any document to show that the petitioner or her husband had the notice and knowledge about the departmental proceeding. The respondents have also not disputed the fact that the petitioner's husband is missing since 1991. In such circumstance, the petitioner ought to have been given at least a notice or opportunity of hearing by the respondents before passing the dismissal order of the petitioner's husband from service so that the petitioner could have informed the respondents regarding the missing of her husband for more than seven years. In such circumstance, it was wholly unjust and unfair on the part of the respondents to dismiss the petitioner's husband from service in a departmental proceeding and thereby debarring the petitioner from receiving monetary benefits and other benefits which is permissible under the rules of the respondents-BCCL. 7. This writ application is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner's husband from service is set aside. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In the event the petitioner is able to prove that her husband was missing since 1991 and his where about is not known to the public at large, then the respondents shall pass appropriate order for payment of all benefits to the petitioner and also other benefits which is permissible under the rules of the BCCL. The petitioner shall appear before the respondents authority within two weeks from today and submit her representation/ explanation. The respondents shall then pass final order within three months from the date of filing of the representation.