IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 5750 of 2004.
---
Sarita Devi ... ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Commissioner, S.P.
Division, Dumka.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka
4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms,
Dumka.
5. The Block Development Officer,
Saraiyahat, Dumka ... ... ... ... ... ... Respondents.
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR MERATHIA
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. A. Allam, Sr. S.C. II.
---
8. 18.5.2010
. Pursuant to the order dated 3.4.2010, Deputy Commissioner, Dumka is
present in Court. A show cause has been filed by him explaining the delay
and tendering unconditional and unqualified apology.
The show cause filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka is accepted
and his personal appearance is dispensed with.
Heard the parties on merits.
2. This writ petition was filed by the husband of the petitioner, namely,
Ganesh Manjhi for setting aside the order dated 19.11.1994 passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, Dumka removing him from service; and the order
dated 29.3.2003 passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division,
Dumka confirming the said order of the Deputy Commissioner. After the
death of petitioner-Ganesh Manjhi, his widow-Sarita Devi has been
substituted in his place.
3. The petitioner’s husband was dismissed from service when the charge
of defalcation of Government money to the tune of Rs. 43,380/- was proved
against him in the departmental proceeding. He was given full opportunity to
defend him. The enquiry officer found that the charges were proved. The
disciplinary authority considered the matter in detail and agreeing with the
said findings, passed order of dismissal. The relevant papers were supplied
and second show cause was served which was replied also. The appellate
authority affirmed the order after considering the entire matter.
4. I do not find any procedural error in the said proceedings or any
perversity in the impugned orders. The scope of interference in such matters
in the writ petition is limited.
5. However, on 9.2. 2010, the following order was passed:-
” Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is allowed three
weeks’ time to obtain instruction and to inform as to whether under the
2.provisions of Service Code and other laws applicable in the case of the
petitioner’s husband the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of any
payment under any specific Head and if so, the nature thereof and the
amount of such benefits which the respondents would agree to give to the
petitioner.
Let this case be posted on Wednesday on the 4th week from today
under the same heading.
Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondents.”
6. Pursuant to the said order, it is stated in the show cause that the
amount to which the petitioner’s husband was entitled being Group
Insurance and G.P.F. to the tune of Rs. 2,01,912/- has been paid to petitioner
vide Cheque No. 23574 dated 14.5.2010 which has been received by her.
7. On this, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that it is not known
whether petitioner is entitled to any further amount or not for which she may
be given liberty to make representation.
8. Accordingly, petitioner is given liberty to make representation if she
has any further legal claim. It goes without saying that if such representation
is filed, the same will be disposed of in accordance with law by passing a
reasoned order, as early as possible and preferably within six weeks from
the date of receipt of such representation.
With these observation, this writ petition is dismissed. However, no
costs.
(R. K. Merathia, J)
AKS.Cp.2.