IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 28569 of 2008 Between: Smt. K.Kamalamma, W/o. Purshotham, R/o. H.No.8-1-280, 16th Ward, Gollaguda Stage, Nalgonda-II (T), Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda District. 2 The Station House Officer,' Atmakur Village and Mandal, Atmakur, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to O.A.No.3481 of 2005 on the file of the Hon'ble A.P. Admn.Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of A.P. (Revised) pension rules, 1980 and consequently direct the respondents herein to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds by duly paying the family pension, gratuity etc., and to grant Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.VENKAT YADAV Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the award of the Tribunal dated 01-11-2006 in O.A.No.3481 of 2005. The applicant is the wife of a police constable who is under order of dismissal. She approached the Tribunal to set aside the proceedings dated 24-08-2004 issued by the first respondent as illegal and arbitrary. The case of the applicant is that her husband, while working as police constable, was missing from 12-07-2001. A criminal case was filed against him while he was in service. The applicant could not trace out his whereabouts whether he is alive or dead. As the husband of the applicant is missing since last more than four years it has to be presumed that he is deemed to be dead, therefore, she is entitled for family pension. The applicant further submits that immediately after his missing, she made a complaint to the police and after three years she made a representation to the authorities requesting to release the gratuity and family pension since her husband has put in more than 19 years of service. The respondents rejected her request. The respondents stated that the applicant’s husband was found missing from 12-07-2001. After a lapse of 1½ years, the applicant has made a complaint to the police station about missing of her husband. Accordingly, a case was registered in Crime No.46 of 2001 and a final report was given in the said crime as undetected. The respondents further submit that the applicant’s husband was dismissed from service on 31-07-2002 and his name was struck off from the rolls with effect from 31-07-2002. As the applicant’s husband was visited with a punishment of dismissal from service, the applicant is not entitled to pensionary benefits and other retiral benefits. The Tribunal has considered this mater and observed that the applicant’s husband was dismissed from service on 31-07-2002 as he failed to report to the Wireless Operator, Radio Station, Bhongir, on 30-04-1999 and created nuisance in a drunken state at the Police Station, Bhongir, and threw the tappal book. Accordingly, departmental enquiry was initiated and oral enquiry was conducted and held that the charge has proved. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the report of the enquiry officer issued a show cause notice. But the said notice was not served as his whereabouts were not known. Ultimately, the applicant’s husband was visited with a punishment of dismissal from service. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal declined to grant the relief prayed by the applicant. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner is a widow and her husband was missing and his whereabouts are not known and he was not aware of the dismissal order, she should have been granted the family pension. Admittedly, when a person is dismissed from service, the question of granting family pension does not arise. There is no error of jurisdiction warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 30th December, 2008 SKM