Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 927 (PAT)

Ful Kumari Devi v. State Of Bihar

2014-08-29

I.A.ANSARI, SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH

body2014
ORDER : SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH, J. The instant appeal is directed against the order, dated 12.11.2013, passed, in C.W.J.C. No. 9817 of 2013, by which a learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition giving liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the Court, again, with respect to retiral and other benefits of her husband if he is acquitted in appeal preferred against the order of his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts of the case, in short, are that the husband of the writ petitioner was appointed as Primary Teacher in the year 1982. Later on, he was promoted to the post of Assistant teacher in Middle School, Kathwa (Sheikhpura) on 30.11.2009. However, in view of his alleged involvement in Barbigha P.S. Case No.57 of 1995 under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, he was placed under suspension on 12.8.1995. The police case gave rise to Sessions Trial No.546 of 1995, wherein the petitioner’s husband was convicted, under Sections 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, by judgment and order, dated 20.11.1998, and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 3. In view of the letter, dated 18.5.2008, of the District Magistrate, Sheikhpura, which was issued following the conviction of the petitioner’s husband, as mentioned above, the District Superintendent of Education, Sheikhpura, dismissed the petitioner from service vide office order, dated 26.05.2008. The petitioner’s husband, being aggrieved, moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13657 of 2008. A learned single Judge noticed that no notice to show cause had been given to the petitioner in terms of the Circular, dated 10.07.2007, of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar. The order of punishment was, therefore, set aside vide order, dated 02.04.2010, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 4. It is relevant to state herein that neither the husband of the writ petitioner nor the State Government brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner’s husband retired on 30.11.2009. In terms of the order of this Court passed on 02.04.2010, a show cause notice was issued, on 29.08.2010, to which the petitioner’s husband replied on 19.9.2010. Later on, as it surfaced that petitioner’s husband had already retired on 30.11.2009, the proceeding was modified by order, dated 18.11.2009. In terms of the order of this Court passed on 02.04.2010, a show cause notice was issued, on 29.08.2010, to which the petitioner’s husband replied on 19.9.2010. Later on, as it surfaced that petitioner’s husband had already retired on 30.11.2009, the proceeding was modified by order, dated 18.11.2009. The Block Education Officer-cum-Enquiry Officer submitted his report to District Superintendent of Education, Sheikhpura, on 17.05.2011, with the finding that no retiral benefit could be given to the petitioner’s husband until and unless he stood acquitted of the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, against which an appeal is pending before the Court. Incidentally, during the pendency of the proceeding, the husband of the appellant died on 01.10.2012. 5. In the year 2013, the petitioner, who is wife of late Rajeshwar Ram, filed C.W.J.C. No. 9817 of 2013 aforementioned seeking direction for payment of retrial benefits of her late husband. The writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge with liberty as noticed in the previous paragraphs. 6. We find that earlier, the learned single Judge, vide order, dated 02.04.2010, had set aside the punishment of dismissal on the ground that the punishment was inflicted without providing a show cause notice to the petitioner’s husband and the view, taken by the learned single Judge, was that even if penalty were sought to be inflicted on the basis of conviction, a show cause notice was necessary in terms of the relevant Circular of the State Government. 7. As the husband of the petitioner retired, the nature of the proceeding was altered and it was continued only for the purposes of passing an order under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. The Block Development Officer submitted his finding, on 17.05.2011, prior to the death of the petitioner’s husband, on 01.10.2010, stating to the effect that unless and until the petitioner’s husband was acquitted of the criminal charge, no retiral benefits could be granted. 8. The learned single Judge declined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner-appellant seeking direction to the respondents for payment of retiral dues of her late husband till the time her husband was acquitted in the appeal pending in the High Court. 8. The learned single Judge declined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner-appellant seeking direction to the respondents for payment of retiral dues of her late husband till the time her husband was acquitted in the appeal pending in the High Court. We do not find any error, factual or legal, in the order passed by the learned single Judge, particularly, in view of the report of Block Development Officer, Sheikhpura, that unless and until the petitioner-appellant’s husband was acquitted of the criminal case, no retiral benefits could be granted and the appeal, even if the same stands abated, can be continued by the present appellant by seeking the abatement to be set aside and to get substituted in place of her deceased husband, as an appellant, so that the criminal appeal can be decided on merit. 9. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 10. While dismissing the appeal, we reiterate the liberty granted by the learned single Judge that if the petitioner’s husband is acquitted in the appeal, she can renew her claim before the authorities concerned for retiral benefits of her husband. However, we observe that the appellant would be entitled to Provident Fund and Insurance amount of her late husband and we direct the same to be paid accordingly, forthwith, if not already paid. I. A. Ansari, J. - I agree