JUDGMENT Honble V.K. Shukla, J.—Petitioner’s husband had been performing and discharging duties as constable in P.A.C. Petitioner’s husband while he was posted in 36 Battalion PAC he was sent for election duty to Pakhur Bihar and while petitioner’s husband was on election duty he disappeared and is not traceable till today. On 16.3.2000 First Information Report was lodged regarding disappearance of the petitioner’s husband. On 12.4.2000 when husband of the petitioner was not traced out then petitioner preferred Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 32409 of 2000 wherein plea was taken in the counter-affidavit that respondents have been unable to trace out the petitioner’s husband. Petitioner as she was under financial constraint approached the authorities concerned for financial assistance as provided under Government Order dated 20.3.1987. Thereafter on 23.3.2004 husband of the petitioner has been suspended in absentia. Petitioner has been informed thereafter by the authority concerned that inquiry is being made qua absconding of husband of the petitioner. Show-cause notice was issued on 10.7.2004 for showing cause as to why services of the husband of the petitioner be not terminated. On 28.7.2004 an order has been passed treating the period starting with effect from 16.2.2000 till 28.7.2004 as leave without pay and simultaneously services of husband of the petitioner has been terminated. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed questioning the validity of the termination order as well as for extending the benefit as envisaged under the Government Order dated 20.3.1987. Counter-affidavit has been filed and therein it has been contended that petitioner’s husband has left without any application for leave as such he has been treated absent from duty and whereabouts of husband of the petitioner is unknown and he cannot be presumed to be dead, unless the period of seven years is elapsed. Petitioner has not complied with the requirement of the Government Order dated 20.3.1987, as such benefit of the said Government Order could not be provided. In this background it has been prayed that writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 2. To this counter-affidavit rejoinder affidavit has been filed and therein statement of fact mentioned in the counter-affidavit has been disputed and that of writ petition has been reiterated. 3. After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties. 4. 2. To this counter-affidavit rejoinder affidavit has been filed and therein statement of fact mentioned in the counter-affidavit has been disputed and that of writ petition has been reiterated. 3. After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties. 4. Sri Amit Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case in all eventuality petitioner was entitled for benefit of Government Order dated 20.3.1987 and instead of tracing out the husband of the petitioner quite illegally by treating absent his services has been terminated which is unjustifiable where as for the said period, leave has been sanctioned as such writ petition deserves to be allowed and prayer made in the writ petition be accorded. 5. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that rightful view has been taken as such no interference is warranted and writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. After respective arguments have been advanced, undisputed position which is emerging is to the effect that petitioner’s husband had been performing and discharging duties as constable and he was sent for duty to Pakhur, State of Bihar and on 16.2.2000 while petitioner’s husband was on election duty he disappeared and even as on today he is untraceable. Petitioner in her turn has made repeated request for tracing out her husband and even First Information Report was lodged regarding disappearance of the petitioner’s husband. Even Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 32409 of 2000 has been filed by the petitioner before this Court for ensuring appearance of her husband. All these facts, clearly substantiates that as far as petitioner is concerned she has done her level best by knocking the door of each and every incumbent for getting her husband traced out. Once husband of the petitioner proceeded for election duty and till date he has not been traced out. In this background it was wholly improper on the part of the disciplinary authority to have presumed that petitioner’s husband absented himself and had voluntarily absconded. Once husband of the petitioner proceeded for election duty and till date he has not been traced out. In this background it was wholly improper on the part of the disciplinary authority to have presumed that petitioner’s husband absented himself and had voluntarily absconded. Entire proceeding which has been undertaken on this score is nothing but misuser of the proceeding, as in the background when an incumbent had disappeared while he was on duty and that too on election duty in the State of Bihar then much more burden was cast upon the respondents to have traced out the whereabouts of husband of petitioner instead of proceeding to take such action which has been taken in the present case by undertaking proceedings initially by way of suspension and thereafter by way of termination. 7. Proceedings in question cannot be said and termed as justifiable proceedings in the fact and backdrop of the present case. Totally inhuman approach has been metted to the problem in question as instead of giving helping hand in the moment of crisis, the Respondents have tried to aggravate the agony of petitioner and family members, as petitioner’s husband has disappeared while he was on duty and till date respondents have failed to trace out him and this is not at all case of Respondents that petitioner’s husband is available but is in hiding. In this background as well as the fact that Commandant 36th Battalion has passed order treating the period starting with effect from 16.2.2000 till 28.7.2004 as leave without pay, the order of termination of service of husband of the petitioner cannot be sustained. 8. Consequently in this background order of suspension as well as order of termination dated 28.7.2004 are hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to extend all benefit as admissible to the petitioner in term of Government Order dated 20.3.1987 within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. 9. Subject to observations made above, present writ petition stand allowed. No orders as cost. ———