Asha Singh & Anr. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. & Ors.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Parul Bajpai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

This petition has been filed seeking following main prayers.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are the wife and son of Indrabhan Singh, who was a Class IV employee in Collectorate, Pratapgarh. It is submitted that the services of husband of petitioner no. 1, who is not traceable since 08.05.2022, were terminated vide impugned order dated 31.12.2024 by means of ex parte proceedings. It is further submitted that missing report of husband of petitioner no. 1 was already lodged, but the police officials informed that Indrabhan Singh is not traceable.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners, who are the legal heir of the missing employee, are entitled for pensionary benefits in pursuance to the Government Order dated 13.04.2017. It is also submitted that as per the Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1999, in case, an employee is absent from duty and he is not traceable, then it is the duty of the authorities to publish the charge sheet in Newspaper, but it was not done in the present case. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned dismissal order dated 31.12.2024 is liable to be quashed and the respondents may be directed to pay arrears as well as other pensionary benefits of the missing employee to the petitioners being his legal heir.

Ms. Parul Bajpai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel places the written instructions duly signed by Mr. Ajay Santoshi, Tehsildar, Patti, Pratapgarh dated 14.09.2026, which are taken on record.

It is submitted by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that missing employee (Indrabhan Singh) is habitual of remaining absent from duties without any notice/information. It is submitted that earlier also, Indrabhan Singh was absent from duties in the year 1986, for which, he was placed under suspension, however, later on, he was reinstated in service on 24.04.1987. Thereafter, in the year 1993, petitioner no. 1 had herself given an application against her husband (missing employee) that he was eloped with another girl, on the basis of which, he was placed under suspension and again was reinstated. It is also submitted that Indrabhan Singh was again suspended on 26.03.2018 for the charge of remaining absent.

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel vehemently submits that during the period of suspension in the year 2018, a F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 40 of 2018 was also lodged against the Indrabhan Singh, under Sections 363, 366, 507, I.P.C. and Sections 7, 8, 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act. Section 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act were also added later on. It is submitted that the charge sheet dated 15.05.2018 was also submitted to the court concerned and charge was also framed by the trial court. It is also submitted that for the said offfences, Indrabhan Singh remained in jail also from 14.05.2018 to 11.01.2019. However, in the disciplinary proceedings on other charge, after awarding punishment, he was reinstated in service vide order dated 26.05.2019. Thereafter, the disciplinary proceedings in question were also initiated and the copy of the charge sheet was also served on petitioner no. 1. It is next submitted that due to non-cooperation, enquiry was concluded and inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer, and a show cause notice was also issued by disciplinary authority, which was published in the Newspaper also. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that no reply was submitted before the disciplinary authority, then the dismissal order dated 31.12.2024 was passed and there is no illegality in the same. While emphasizing that the Government Order dated 13.04.2017 is not applicable in the present case, Ms. Bajpai submits that the prayer of the petitioners for arrears as well as family pension of the missing employee, being his legal heirs, cannot be granted, as he was already dismissed from service.

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record including the written instructions, it is evident that the missing employee is the accused of a criminal case, i.e., Case Crime No. 40 of 2018 lodged under Sections 363, 366, 507, I.P.C. and Sections 7, 8, 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act , in which, later on Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act were also added. It is further evident that in the said case, charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer and thereafter, charge was framed by the court concerned. However, later on, he was enlarged on bail. It is further evident that the employee was absconding in the aforesaid criminal case and at the same time, the disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the missing employee for the charge of remaining absent from duty. Evidently, all the means were adopted by the authorities, but delinquent employee failed to cooperate in the disciplinary proceedings in question, as a result, ex parte inquiry was concluded and thereafter, show cause notice was issued, which was published in the Newspaper. It is also evident that no reply was submitted by the employee, whereafter, impugned dismissal order was passed on 31.12.2024.

In view of above facts and circumstances, though the petitioners, being legal heirs of the missing employee, are taking guard of the Government Order dated 13.04.2017 for claiming the pensionary benefits, but the same cannot be permitted to be given to them on the ground that missing employee, who is a absconder in a criminal case, has already been dismissed from service for the charge of absent from duty.

For the reasons aforesaid, the petition, being misconceived, stands dismissed.