APHC010462852014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 300/2014 Between: 1. SMT.MADEPALLI NAGAVENI,, W/O. M. KONDA RAO, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 18 EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 1. THE A P STATE ROAD CORPORATION, REPD. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSRTC, MUSHEERABAD, A.P., HYDERABAD, (RR 1&2 NOT NECESSARY IN THIS PETITION). 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. (RR 1&2 NOT NECESSARY IN THIS PETITION). 3. THE DEPOT MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C., ELES GODAVARI DISTRICT. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S A RAZAK Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC 2. . The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 300/2014 SMT.MADEPALLI NAGAVENI,, W/O. M. KONDA RAO, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 18-7-37, GANAPATHI NAGAR, SAMALKOTA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE A P STATE ROAD CORPORATION, REPD. BY ITS VICE MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSRTC, MUSHEERABAD, A.P., HYDERABAD, (RR 1&2 NOT NECESSARY IN THIS PETITION). THE REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. (RR 1&2 NOT NECESSARY IN THIS THE DEPOT MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C., ELESWARAM DEPOT, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3457] SMT.MADEPALLI NAGAVENI,, W/O. M. KONDA RAO, AGED ABOUT 37, GANAPATHI NAGAR, SAMALKOTA, ...PETITIONER THE A P STATE ROAD CORPORATION, REPD. BY ITS VICE MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSRTC, MUSHEERABAD, A.P., HYDERABAD, (RR 1&2 NOT NECESSARY IN THIS PETITION). THE REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. (RR 1&2 NOT NECESSARY IN THIS WARAM DEPOT, EAST ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 ORDER:- Petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in not paying the death-cum-retirement benefits of her husband. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner's husband was engaged as a typist on 13.05.1982 and he was missing from 29.04.2002. Police registered Crime No.111 of 2002 at Osmania University Police Station on receipt of complaint from the petitioner. Petitioner had complained that her husband had gone missing after having left home for medical examination on 10.05.2002. It is submitted that the respondents were informed of the husband of the petitioner being missing. However, the respondents have issued a charge memo and conducted a unilateral enquiry and have determined that the petitioner's husband has been absconding from duty and passed orders of termination dated 29.09.2003. The disciplinary authority has determined that the petitioner has absented from duty from 02.05.2002 onwards, without intimation and without sanction of leave. The said order would also refer to the enquiry which was conducted against the petitioner's husband. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner's husband was admittedly missing and the petitioner had no other option than to file a complaint of man missing with the jurisdictional police station. It is further submitted that the respondents after having been informed of the missing of the petitioner's husband could not have issued a charge memo and conducted an enquiry without serving the charge memo physically on the employee. It is also submitted that the petitioner had submitted an application, seeking appointment on 3 compassionate terms. However, the same was not considered. It is submitted that the respondent authority served the orders of removal from service dated 29.09.2003 on 30.06.2012. 4. Learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondent corporation submits that the petitioner's husband had applied for 2 days leave on 29.04.2002 and 30.04.2002 and sought for getting medical check-up at Taranaka Hospital. It is submitted that the petitioner's husband did not report to duties from 02.05.2002 onwards and a charge sheet dated 09.09.2002 was issued by the 3rd respondent for the unauthorized absence. It is submitted that the respondent authorities have sent the charge sheet to the available postal address on the name of the petitioner's husband and the same was returned unserved. It is also submitted that the respondent authorities have followed the procedure in conducting enquiry and the enquiry was conducted ex parte as the petitioner's husband did not choose to attend the enquiry. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent received representation from the petitioner on 12.05.2010 only and that the petitioner's case was not considered for appointment on compassionate terms. 5. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's son and daughter were physically handicapped and the respondents ought to have released the family pension due payable to the petitioner on account of the service rendered by the petitioner's husband during the period of service. 4 6. Reliance is placed on the judgment in N Pankajam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu1. 17. Here the petitioner has established that the petitioner's husband has not been heard for over 7 years from 19.05.1987 and the same is not disputed and therefore, it is to be presumed that the petitioner's husband is dead as per Section 108 of Indian Evidence Act. 18. In view of the said finding, the action of the second respondent in removing the name of the petitioner's husband from the roll of the Corporation is illegal, since the petitioner's husband cannot be treated as an absentee. As he was not available, he could not report for duty. The contention of the second respondent that the petitioner's husband having been removed from the roll, the petitioner is not entitled to get retirement benefits and her son cannot be given compassionate appointment are unsustainable. 19. The petitioner's husband having been presumed to be dead on 19.0 5.1987, the second respondent is bound to sanction the retirement benefits and other benefits, which are legally available to the person who die while in service. The claim of petitioner's son namely, Rajesh, for compassionate appointment is bound to be considered by the second respondent as per the rules. The petitioner is entitled to get sanction of pension and other benefits, as her husband is to be treated as dead from 19.05.1987.” The Hon'ble Madras High Court was dealing with a similar case and has held that an enquiry conducted ex parte, more so when the whereabouts of the employee were unknown, adverse orders could not have been passed. 1 2006 Law Suit (Mad) 1470 5 7. On the facts of this case, the employee of the respondent was missing from 29.04.2002. The charge sheet addressed to the petitioner's husband was also returned unserved. In such circumstances, the respondents could not have proceeded further in conducting a unilateral inquiry and passing orders of removal. The respondents ought to have exhibited some sensitivity to the case of the petitioner and passed a reasonable order on her representation seeking appointment on compassionate terms in the year 2010. 8. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has also attained the age of superannuation. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the methodology of conducting enquiry, more so in cases where the delinquent employees are missing ought to have been approached in a more pragmatic and practical manner. However, insofar as the present case and facts and circumstances of this case are concerned, the respondents would have to disburse the service benefits due payable to the petitioner's husband for the service rendered by him from the date of his joining till the date of he being reported to be missing to be paid within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is also made clear that the respondents shall have to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the outstanding due from the date of his reported missing. The impugned termination order is hereby set aside. 6 9. With these observations, this petition is disposed off. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date.04.02.2026. SR