JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, the State of Jharkhand is in appeal. By the impugned judgment dated 12.04.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3204 of 2013, the penalty order of dismissal from service dated 23.10.2007 inflicted upon the husband of the writ petitioner, ex parte and the appellate order dated 14.03.2013 affirming the same were quashed. The writ petitioner was held entitled to the benefits of family pension and other post-retirement benefits with a rider that it shall not be paid to the writ petitioner for the next two years and if mother of the deceased employee appears, the amount shall be distributed amongst the legal heirs in terms of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The learned Single Judge also directed the respondent State to decide the claim for compassionate appointment of the writ petitioner within 3 months. Husband of the writ petitioner namely Bharat Dharti Thapa had died on 19.11.2007 in rather strange circumstances during his period of absence at a place called Medak in Andhra Pradesh. 3. Relevant material facts borne from record indicate that husband of the writ petitioner was a constable in Jharkhand Armed Police (JAP)-I. He had absented from duty from 08.03.2007 without information or leave. He was proceeded against for the charge of willful unauthorized absence from duty. Notices sent on his permanent address remained undelivered due to his absence since no other person was available to receive it. The proceeding ended ex parte with the order of his dismissal from service. 4. Writ petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal from service under Rule 851 of the Jharkhand Police Manual on 14.12.2012. The appeal was accompanied with application for condonation of delay. In the application for condonation of delay, the writ petitioner took ground that she had filed the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2730 of 2009 before this Court for grant of compassionate appointment and payment of death cum retirement dues. However, during pendency of the writ petition she was advised by her new counsel that order of dismissal needs to be challenged in appeal. On account of ignorance, the appeal could not filed within prescribed time of 6 months but could be filed on 08.12.2012 only with sufficient explanation for delay. There was no laches or negligence on her part. However, during pendency of the writ petition she was advised by her new counsel that order of dismissal needs to be challenged in appeal. On account of ignorance, the appeal could not filed within prescribed time of 6 months but could be filed on 08.12.2012 only with sufficient explanation for delay. There was no laches or negligence on her part. In the appeal the writ petitioner had inter alia taken the following grounds: I. That the disciplinary proceeding has been concluded ex parte without hearing the delinquent employee or the writ petitioner; II. the employee was suffering from retardation of mind; III. termination order was passed on 23.10.2007 and on 19.11.2007 office was informed about his death in Medak, Andhara Pradesh; IV. the inquiry proceeding was concluded in haste without service of notice; within 7 months of his absence he was dismissed from service, though there were no willful absence rather he was suffering from mental retardation; V. the writ petitioner also urged that she was only 29 years old and has a son aged 7 years with no bread earner in the family. The mother of the employee was nominated for provident fund. But she was settled in Nepal and she had never come to receive her legal dues; VI. the F.I.R lodged by Medak Police revealed that the deceased was suspected of suffering from some mental disease. 5. The appellate authority Director General of Police, JAP, Ranchi dismissed the appeal by order dated 14.03.2013 holding that during inquiry proceeding, no such proof of medical illness or any serious disease was produced by the delinquent or on his behalf. Findings were recorded on the basis of materials produced by the Presenting Officer. Employee was not married since in his service book the name of his father, mother and sister were recorded and not of the appellant/writ petitioner. Since the delinquent employee was absconder, notices were sent on his home address by a special messenger and registered Daak, which confirmed that he was absent. No such information was given to the competent authority under JAP, Ranchi about the reason for his absence. Therefore, after proper inquiry the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed. The appeal was also grossly barred by delay as the time limit prescribed for preferring such an appeal is 6 months. 6. No such information was given to the competent authority under JAP, Ranchi about the reason for his absence. Therefore, after proper inquiry the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed. The appeal was also grossly barred by delay as the time limit prescribed for preferring such an appeal is 6 months. 6. It is pertinent to mention here that the writ petitioner had produced a certificate of the Sanitation In-charge, JAP-I, Ranchi (annexure-9 to the writ petition) showing that the writ petitioner was widow of the deceased constable Bharat Dharti Thapa and was living in the JAP-I Campus, Mandir Line, Ranchi since last 5 years. The certificate is dated 17.04.2010. Writ petitioner had annexed photo at annexure-7 series to show their marriage and the birth certificate of her son dated 09.11.2006 issued by Rama Nursing Home, Main Road, Ranchi showing that the employee Bharat Dharti Thapa is the husband of the writ petitioner. Writ petitioner had also made an application for compassionate appointment before the Commandant, JAP-I on 22.05.2008 as according to her, her husband had died in harness. She also stated that he was suffering from mental illness and tension and found missing from work. Despite search and inquiry made including from his parental place at Nepal, her husband could not be traced. The application also referred to the F.I.R instituted by the Medak Police about the death of her husband. 7. Learned Single Judge on consideration of the rival stand of the parties and the attendant material facts borne from the record, came to the conclusion that the penalty order is unsustainable for the following reasons:- “6. The penalty order dated 23.10.2007 is also unsustainable for the following reasons: On an allegation of absence from duty on 08.03.2007 husband of the petitioner was put under suspension on 11.04.2007. He was directed through letter dated 26.03.2007 to report for duty still, when he did not join his duty a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. Charge framed against him was of unauthorised absence from duty since 08.03.2007. The second show-cause notice dated 06.09.2007 and the penalty order dated 23.10.2007 would indicate that letters dated 26.06.2007, 21.07.2007 and 06.09.2007 were issued to him, however, when he did not participate in the departmental proceeding in an ex-parte proceeding penalty of dismissal from service was inflicted upon him on 23.10.2007. The second show-cause notice dated 06.09.2007 and the penalty order dated 23.10.2007 would indicate that letters dated 26.06.2007, 21.07.2007 and 06.09.2007 were issued to him, however, when he did not participate in the departmental proceeding in an ex-parte proceeding penalty of dismissal from service was inflicted upon him on 23.10.2007. The penalty order records that notices issued as well as sent through correspondence messenger were returned undelivered. In the above facts, an inference that absence of the husband of the petitioner from duty since 08.03.2007 was wilfull cannot be drawn; had the notices been served upon the employee who did not report for duty, depending on the facts of the case, an adverse inference can be drawn, but not otherwise. 7. In the case of “Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India & Ors.” reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 , the government servant, who was working as Security Assistant, was found unauthorisedly absent in the departmental enquiry, however, the Supreme Court has held that since there is no finding recorded during the departmental enquiry that the absence was wilfull, the order of dismissal from service was liable to be interfered with. The Supreme Court has held as under ; 17. “If the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be wilful. Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorised absence, but it does not always mean wilful. There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, hospitalisation, etc., but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a government servant. 18. In a departmental proceeding, if allegation of unauthorised absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is wilful, in the absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct.” 8. In view of the admitted facts and the law on the subject, the penalty order dated 23.10.2007 is apparently unsustainable. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been considered by the appellate authority. In the result, the penalty order dated 23.10.2007 and the appellate order dated 14.03.2013 are quashed.” 8. In view of the admitted facts and the law on the subject, the penalty order dated 23.10.2007 is apparently unsustainable. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been considered by the appellate authority. In the result, the penalty order dated 23.10.2007 and the appellate order dated 14.03.2013 are quashed.” 8. Before us, learned counsel for the appellant State inter alia has taken the following grounds for assailing the impugned judgment: I. the factum of unauthorized absence since 08.03.2007 by the employee is not in dispute. During inquiry proceeding notices were issued but could not be delivered on the employee on his parental address as no one was present on that address including the delinquent employee. Notice by special messenger also returned undelivered. The proceedings were therefore conducted ex parte; II. no information of missing was given to the inquiry office or the controlling officer of the employee by any one including the writ petitioner; III. no information of any medical disease or serious illness affecting the employee was either brought to the notice of inquiry officer; IV. due to unauthorized absence over a period starting from 08.03.2007, even after direction to report for duty on 26.03.2007 when the employee failed to join duty or participate in the departmental proceeding, the order of penalty was imposed as the charges of willful absence were duly established. In such circumstances, learned Single Judge was not right in holding that mere unauthorized absence would not substantiate the charge unless absence is shown as willful. It is further submitted that the appellant State had inquired into the certificate of the writ petitioner while processing her claim for compassionate appointment in terms of the directions issued by the Writ Court but it has been found to be fake. This fact has been brought on record through supplementary affidavit dated 22.10.2018. In such circumstances, claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment is also not entertainable. Learned Writ Court has failed to take into account these relevant material facts and the considered findings of the inquiry officer that absence of the employee was willful and unauthorized. The appeal was also barred by 1600 and odd days of delay. The writ petitioner had earlier approached this Court seeking the appointment on compassionate grounds in 2009 itself and the death of the employee in November 2007 was also known to her at that time. The appeal was also barred by 1600 and odd days of delay. The writ petitioner had earlier approached this Court seeking the appointment on compassionate grounds in 2009 itself and the death of the employee in November 2007 was also known to her at that time. The appellate authority’s order is also well considered and no proof of medical illness could be shown even in appeal to substantiate that his absence was not willful. Therefore, the impugned judgment suffers from serious error or law and facts and fit to be set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent herein has supported the impugned judgment. He submits that the writ petitioner is a poor widow lady whose husband had gone missing because of mental illness in March 2007. Despite search and inquiry, he could not be traced even from his parental house. The inquiry proceeding was conducted in an ex parte manner without taking steps for proper service of notice though as per the certificate of the Sanitation I/C of JAP-I, Ranchi, it was well known to the authorities that the employee was living with his wife at the JAP-I Campus, Mandir Line, Ranchi. The F.I.R instituted by the Medak Police regarding the death of the husband of the writ petitioner was sent directly to the authorities of the JAP indicating suspicion of some mental illness which the deceased was suffering. Still an erroneous finding of willful unauthorized absence was recorded against the delinquent employee and he was wrongly dismissed from service. The appellate authority also did not apply its mind to the specific ground taken in appeal by the widow/writ petitioner. In those circumstances, learned Writ Court has rightly quashed the impugned penalty order and the appellate order and directed payment of admissible post retirement dues with certain rider as also consideration of the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The appeal being devoid of merit is fit to be dismissed. 10. We have considered the submission of leaned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record as noted above and also perused the impugned judgment. On the conspectus of facts and circumstances noted herein above, it appears that the delinquent was proceeded for willful unauthorized absence from 08.03.2007. 10. We have considered the submission of leaned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record as noted above and also perused the impugned judgment. On the conspectus of facts and circumstances noted herein above, it appears that the delinquent was proceeded for willful unauthorized absence from 08.03.2007. It further appears that notice was sent on his parental home as indicated in his service book, though the employee was living in the JAP-I campus near Mandir Line, Ranchi, as per the certificate issued by the Sanitation Incharge, JAP-I showing that he was residing along with the writ petitioner since 5 years i.e., from 2005 till when the certificate was issued in 2010. The delinquent was a regular employee of JAP. He went missing and was found dead in a place far off from Jharkhand in Medak, Andhra Pradesh on 19.11.2007 in strange circumstances. The F.I.R instituted by the Medak Police suspected some mental disease which the deceased was suffering at the time of his death. There were compelling circumstances due to mental illness of the employee, as a result of which he wandered away from Ranchi where he was posted as a Constable at JAP-I without any information even to his family or notice to the Controlling authority. He was ultimately found dead in strange circumstances at a far off place like Medak in Andhra Pradesh. This fact was itself brought to the notice of authorities at JAP-I by Medak Police with copy of the F.I.R. which suspected that the deceased was suffering from mental illness. Despite such specific grounds taken in appeal, the Appellate Authority has shrugged it aside only for he reason that no documentary proof of such mental illness or serious disease was produced. Therefore the findings of the Disciplinary authority and Appellate Authority to the effect that the unauthorized absence of the employee was willful did not appeal to reason to the learned Single Judge. The learned Court relied upon a decision in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 and came to the opinion that mere unauthorized absence should not entail a penalty of dismissal from service unless the absence was shown to be willful. The learned Court relied upon a decision in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 and came to the opinion that mere unauthorized absence should not entail a penalty of dismissal from service unless the absence was shown to be willful. Learned Single Judge was of the view that in the circumstances of the case, the findings of the inquiry officer that delinquent had absented himself willfully and in unauthorized manner, were not proper in the eyes of law and on fact. The learned Single Judge also held that this ground was also taken before the appellate authority by the writ petitioner but the appellate authority shrugged it aside without any cogent reason. In those circumstances, learned Writ Court arrived at a considered opinion that penalty of dismissal from service inflicted upon the employee who died in unfortunate and strange circumstances on 19.11.2007 at Medak, Andhra Pradesh was not proper and sustainable in the eyes of law. Consequently, it was held that the claim for pension and other post retirement dues of the employee were admissible though it was hedged with a condition that if the mother of the deceased employee appears, the amount should be distributed amongst the legal heirs of the employee in terms of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 11. Upon due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances noted above, we do not find that the findings of the learned Single Judge suffers from such errors of law or facts which render it vulnerable to be set aside in appeal. However, consideration of the claim for compassionate appointment of the writ petitioner is dependent upon fulfillment of the eligibility conditions including educational qualification, age criteria and suitability for the job. Learned Single Judge has also not expressly directed the respondent State to offer her compassionate appointment but only directed consideration of her case. We, therefore, are not inclined to make any observation, so far as consideration of her claim for compassionate appointment is concerned except that it should be decided in accordance with law. 12. On the basis of discussion made and reasons recorded herein above, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending I.A. is closed.