Madhya Pradesh High Court
Priyanka Rahul Dhawas vs Cotton Corporation Of India on 5 February, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7172
1 W.P. No.9573/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 5th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 9573 of 2023
PRIYANKA RAHUL DHAWAS
Versus
COTTON CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
............................................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Suyash Tripathi - Advocate for the respondents.
............................................................................................................................................
ORDER
Challenge in this petition is made to order dated 26/05/2022
passed by respondent No.1 whereby the Authorities had called upon the
petitioner for recovery of amount of Rs.73,84,116/- towards the loss
being caused to the respondents during intervening period of 2019-20
and 2020-21.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents on notice has marked his
presence and raised the issue of territorial jurisdiction of this Court to
entertain the Writ Petition. It is argued that the petitioner's husband was
in service in the respondents Department as a Commercial Officer at
Ahmedabad, therefore entire proceedings have taken place at
Ahmedabad. No cause of action is available to the petitioner to file the
petition before the Court at Madhya Pradesh as this Court lacks
territorial jurisdiction to entertain such Writ Petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that
document Annexure-P/3, which is put to challenge in the present
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7172
petition, was served to the petitioner at her home address at Betul,
Madhya Pradesh. After the death of husband of the petitioner, she is
residing at Betul, therefore part cause of action has arisen at Betul. He
has placed emphasis upon the paragraph 28 of the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Devi @ Shanti
Mishra Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2020) 10 SCC
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of territorial
jurisdiction and perused the record.
5. From perusal of the record, it is clear that the impugned order was
served upon the petitioner at her home address at Betul. It is her specific
case that after death of her husband, she is residing at Betul.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Devi @ Shanti
Mishra (supra) has held as under:-
―28. From the facts of the present case, we are of
the considered opinion that part of the cause of
action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction
of the Patna High Court. The deceased petitioner
was continuously receiving pension for the last 8
years in his savings bank account in State Bank
of India, Darbhanga. The stoppage of pension of
late B.N. Mishra affected him at his native place,
he being deprived of the benefit of pension
which he was receiving from his employer. The
employer requires a retiring employee to indicate
the place where he shall receive pension after his
retirement. Late Shri B.N. Mishra had opted for
receiving his pension in State Bank of India,
Darbhanga, State of Bihar, which was his native
place, from where he was drawing his pension
regularly for the last 8 years, stoppage of pension
gave a cause of action, which arose at the place
where the petitioner was continuously receiving
the pension. We, thus, are of the view that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7172
view of the learned Single Judge [Shanti Devi v.
Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine Pat 3639] as
well as the Division Bench [Shanti Devi v. Union
of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Pat 933] holding the
writ petition not maintainable on the ground of
lack of territorial jurisdiction was completely
erroneous and has caused immense hardship to
the petitioner.
29. Another submission which has been
advanced by the learned counsel for Respondents
1 to 3 is that the writ petition was rightly
dismissed on the principle of forum non
conveniens. Forum non conveniens has been
defined by P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law
Lexicon, 3rd Edn. in the following words:
―Forum non conveniens.--The
principle that a case should be heard
in a court of the place where parties,
witnesses, and evidence are
primarily located.‖
30. Black's Law Dictionary defines forum
conveniens in the following words:
―Forum conveniens.--The court in
which an action is most
appropriately brought, considering
the best interests and convenience of
the parties and witnesses.‖
31. This Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd.
[Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India,
(2004) 6 SCC 254] has also referred to the
principle of forum conveniens. The following
was stated in para 30: (SCC p. 264)
―Forum conveniens
30. We must, however, remind
ourselves that even if a small part of
cause of action arises within the
territorial jurisdiction of the High
Court, the same by itself may not be
considered to be a determinative
factor compelling the High Court to
decide the matter on merit. In
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7172
appropriate cases, the Court may
refuse to exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine
of forum conveniens. [See Bhagat
Singh Bugga v. Dewan Jagbir
Sawhney [Bhagat Singh Bugga v.
Dewan Jagbir Sawhney, 1941 SCC
OnLine Cal 247 : AIR 1941 Cal
670] , Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal
[Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal, 1945
SCC OnLine Cal 145 : AIR 1949
Cal 495] , Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.
v. Jharia Talkies & Cold Storage (P)
Ltd. [Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v.
Jharia Talkies & Cold Storage (P)
Ltd., 1997 CWN 122] , S.S. Jain &
Co. v. Union of India [S.S. Jain &
Co. v. Union of India, 1993 SCC
OnLine Cal 306 : (1994) 1 CHN
445] and New Horizons Ltd. v.
Union of India [New Horizons Ltd.
v. Union of India, 1993 SCC OnLine
Del 564 : AIR 1994 Del 126].]‖
32. As noted above, the learned Single Judge has
also observed [Shanti Devi v. Union of India,
2017 SCC OnLine Pat 3639] that the petitioner
ought to have filed the writ petition in the
Jharkhand High Court where his earlier writ
petition was pending. The earlier writ petition
which was initially filed in 2006 in the Patna
High Court was for refund of the amount as
noted above. After dismissal of the writ petition
by the Patna High Court on the ground of lack of
territorial jurisdiction, Shri B.N. Mishra had filed
Writ Petition No. 4930 of 2013 in the Jharkhand
High Court for the relief which was claimed in
Writ Petition No. 13955 of 2006. As noted
above, the cause of action for filing Writ Petition
No. 5999 of 2014 was entirely different.
Stoppage of pension and asking for refund of
more than Rs 8 lakhs amount had serious adverse
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7172
effect on the petitioner, who was staying at his
native place Darbhanga. A retired employee,
who is receiving pension, cannot be asked to go
to another Court to file the writ petition, when he
has a cause of action for filing a writ petition in
the Patna High Court. For a retired employee
convenience is to prosecute his case at the place
where he belonged to and was getting pension.
The submission of the learned counsel for
Respondents 1 to 3 on principle of forum non
conveniens has no substance.
33. In result, we allow the appeal, set aside the
judgment [Shanti Devi v. Union of India, 2018
SCC OnLine Pat 933] of the Patna High Court
and hold that Writ Petition No. 5999 of 2014 was
fully maintainable at the Patna High Court and
the learned Single Judge [Shanti Devi v. Union of
India, 2017 SCC OnLine Pat 3639] and the
Division Bench [Shanti Devi v. Union of India,
2018 SCC OnLine Pat 933] committed error in
dismissing the writ petition on the ground of lack
of territorial jurisdiction. The writ petition stands
revived before the Patna High Court.‖
7. Taking note of aforesaid settled legal proposition of law by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as facts and circumstances of the
present case, it is apparently clear that the place of residence of
employee where he is in position to get post retiral claims can be
considered to be the place where she can raise all her grievances
coupled with the fact that order dated 26/05/2022 (Annexure-P/3) was
served upon the petitioner at her home address at Betul, Madhya
Pradesh, the part cause of action has arisen to the petitioner. Therefore,
it is held that this Court is having jurisdiction to entertain the Writ
Petition. Therefore the objection taken with respect to territorial
jurisdiction is overruled. Petition is held to be maintainable before this
Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7172
8. As far as merits of the case are concerned, it is the case of the
petitioner that petitioner's husband was working as Commercial Officer
in the Office of Deputy General Manager, Cotton Corporation of India
at Ahmedabad and while in service, he expired on 26/12/2021. After
death of the petitioner's husband, she submitted various representations
and personally met the officers of Respondent No.1 twice for getting the
post retiral claims of her husband. Petitioner had submitted
representations dated 22/08/2022, 02/10/2022 and 07/07/2022 which are
still pending and not being considered by the Authorities. Vide letter
dated 26/05/2022 which is the letter impugned, the Deputy General
manager has informed the petitioner that there are some irregularities
committed by her husband while he was in service and amount of
Rs.73,84,116/- is to be recovered.
9. It is the case of petitioner that there is a scheme for monetary
compensation for the employees of the respondents and wife of the
deceased employee is entitled for said monetary benefit in terms of said
scheme but the same has not been extended till date. It is argued that no
disciplinary proceedings have ever taken place against the husband of
the petitioner while he was in service. No enquiry was conducted and no
penalty was imposed upon him. Till his death, no action was taken by
the Authorities against her husband. Now after the death, respondents
are restrained from taking any action against her towards any act
committed by her husband, as the employer - employee relationship
does not exist any more. It is argued that the Authorities are having no
right to withhold the claims of her deceased husband to which she is
legally entitled. She has placed reliance on the orders passed by Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Rekha Tomar Vs.
M.P. Warehousing & Logistics Corporation and Another decided on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7172
30/08/2022 in W.P. No.17214/2017 (Gwalior Bench) and in the case of
Smt. Veena Dhurvey Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
decided on 06/07/2023 in W.P. No.13655/2017, wherein similar issue
was take note of.
10. On notice being issued, reply has been filed by the Authorities
pointing out the fact that after the death of petitioner's husband, they
have taken action for settlement of terminal benefits to his spouse i.e.
pension of Rs.5,223/- per month under the Cotton Corporation of India
Ltd. Employees Contributory Superannuation Scheme (in short ‗CCICS
Scheme') since November, 2022. The claim papers regarding pension
under Employees Pension Scheme have been submitted to EPFO Vashi
vide letter dated 17/05/2023 for necessary action and pension will be
disbursed to the claimant directly by EPFO. An amount of
Rs.21,21,696/- lying with Corporation towards Provident Fund in
respect of employee has been remitted to the Bank Account of petitioner
on 25/0/2023 through RTGS. It is further contended that during cotton
season 2019-20, 2022-21, the loss of Corporation has been informed in
writing to Shri Rahul Dhawas by letter dated 18/10/2021 and subsequent
reminders dated 01/11/2021 and 07/12/2021. No action was taken by the
petitioner's husband at the relevant time to recover the loss of amount of
Rs.73,84,116/-, therefore the amount towards the loss has to be
recovered from the legal heirs of the deceased. For the benefit of the
Scheme i.e. CCICS Scheme, the beneficiary will be eligible to get the
benefit under the scheme only after the loans/ advances taken by the
employee from the Corporation and other dues (if any) has been repaid
by the beneficiary in full to the Corporation. In the present case, the
situation is different. There is loss to the Corporation owing to the
negligent act of the husband of the deceased who have not taken any
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7172
prompt action to the letter which was issued to him while he was in
service to recover the amount of Rs.73,84,116/-. Under these
circumstances, the petitioner cannot be held to be beneficiary under the
scheme. Therefore, the entire claim in terms of the scheme could not be
settled in favour of the petitioner.
11. Petitioner has filed rejoinder to the aforesaid contention
submitting that letters which have been issued are self-contradictory.
Respondents themselves are not sure about the fact that how much loss
is caused and during which period. From the letter dated 11/02/2022
issued to the petitioner requesting to submit certain documents for
payment of Provident Fund, gratuity, pension and other service benefit,
it is not reflected that the loss is being caused to the Corporation by
petitioner's husband. Respondents themselves have issued a letter dated
14/02/2022 for providing job under the compassionate appointment
scheme to the petitioner. Even otherwise, once the petitioner's husband
is already expired and there is no relationship of employer - employee
relationship in existence any more coupled with the fact that during the
lifetime of petitioner's husband, the Authorities have kept quite for
considerable period and no action was taken by them against the
husband of the petitioner, then they are debarred from taking any action
against the petitioner and cannot hold the post retiral claims including
the benefit of the scheme. Even if the arguments of the respondents are
considered that the petitioner will not come under the definition of
beneficiary if the loans/ advances taken by the employee from the
Corporation are not repaid, the loss caused to the Corporation does not
fall under the category of loan and advances taken by the employee or
even other dues. As no enquiry was conducted by the Authorities and no
punishment order was passed imposing penalty of said amount from the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7172
petitioner's husband, therefore the action taken by the Authorities is per
se illegal.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
13. The admitted facts in the petition being that the petitioner's
husband being an employee in the respondents Department working on
the post of Commercial Officer in Ahmedabad who passed away while
in service on 26/12/2021. While he was in service, letters dated
18/10/2021, 01/11/2021 and 07/12/2021 were issued to the petitioner
pointing out the loss being caused to the Corporation during the cotton
season 2019-20 and 2020-21. However, petitioner's husband passed
away on 26/12/2021. No action was initiated against husband of the
petitioner at any point of time by the respondents Department. Thus, it is
the case of no enquiry being conducted against the husband of the
petitioner at any point of time while he was in service with respect to the
loss caused to the Corporation during the cotton season 2019-20 and
2020-21. Merely the fact that two letters were issued pointing out the
loss being caused to the Corporation does not amount to petitioner being
responsible for causing such a loss to the Corporation.
14. As no action was taken by the Authorities at relevant time, now
after the death of petitioner's husband as the employer - employee
relationship does not exist any more, petitioner's husband cannot be
held responsible for not taking any action during the relevant time for
recovery of the said amount.
15. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Rekha
Tomar (supra) has held as under:-
"8. Counsel for the respondents could not point out
any provision of law which empowers the Corporation
to initiate a departmental enquiry against a dead
employee. Furthermore, after the death of an employee
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7172
takes place, the relationship of employer and employee
also stand broken for the purposes of departmental
enquiry. Even if the death takes place during the
pendency of departmental enquiry, the departmental
proceedings would stand abated. The Allahabad High
Court in the case of Durgawati Dubey vs. State of
U.P. and others by order dated 08.10.2018 passed in
WRIT-A No.40057 of 2013 has held as under:-
By the perusal of records, this fact is
undisputed that departmental proceeding
was initiated after the death of husband of
petitioner. It appears that only after order
of this Court dated 22.02.2013,
respondents have initiated the
departmental proceeding ignoring this fact
that husband of the petitioner died much
earlier. It is also very ridiculous that
Inquiry Officer has issued notice to
petitioner to submit the reply for an
allegation against her late husband. In fact
this act of Inquiry Officer is absolutely
suffers from non application of mind and
also ignores settled law of departmental
proceeding. How it is possible for the
petitioner to submit reply with regard to
the alleged allegation of embezzlement by
her late husband. Whatever letters are
referred in the counter affidavit, either
filed by respondent No. 4 or by the State-
respondents with regard to the
departmental proceeding are undisputedly
after the death of husband of petitioner.
Therefore, in such facts, the complete
departmental proceeding is ex facie bad as
in any case, no inquiry can be initiated
against a dead person. Respondents may
have initiate the inquiry proceeding during
the service period of husband of petitioner
or at least before his death, but after death,
complete inquiry proceeding as well as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7172
impugned order dated 10.06.2013 is bad in
law and not sustainable.
Apart from that I have also seen the
judgments of this Court as well as other
High Courts occupying the field. In the
case of Smt. Rajeshwari Devi Vs. State
of U.P. and Ors. 2011(2) ADJ 643
decided on 07.01.2011, the Court has held
that as soon so as a person dies, he breaks
all his connection with the worldly affairs,
therefore, no disciplinary proceeding can
be initiated against him. Relevant
Paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 of the judgment
are being quoted below:-
"6. Holding of departmental enquiry
and imposition of punishment
contemplates a pre-requisite condition that
the employee concerned, who is to be
proceeded against and is to be punished, is
continuing an employee, meaning thereby
is alive. As soon as a person dies, he
breaks all his connection with the worldly
affairs. It cannot be said that the chain of
employment would still continue to enable
employer to pass an order, punitive in
nature, against the dead employee.......
7........It is well settled that a punishment
not prescribed under the rules, as a result
of disciplinary proceedings, cannot be
awarded even to the employee what to say
of others. The Court feel pity on the
officers of Nagar Nigam, Bareilly in
continuing with the departmental enquiry
against a person who was already died and
this information of death was well
communicated to the enquiry officer as
well as disciplinary authority. They
proceeded with enquiry and passed
impugned orders against a dead person.
This is really height of ignorance of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7172
principles of service laws and shows total
ignorance on the part of the officers of
Nagar Nigam in respect to the disciplinary
matters. This Court expresses its
displeasure with such state of affairs and
such a level of unawareness on the part of
the respondents who are responsible in
establishment matters. They have to be
condemned in strong words for their total
lack of knowledge of such administrative
matters on account whereof legal heirs of
poor deceased employee have suffered."
In the matter of Gulam Gausul
Azam and others Vs. State of U.P. and
others 2014 (5) ADJ 558 decided on
12.05.2014, the Court has held that before
disciplinary authority could pass any order
on the inquiry report, petitioner died
ending the master and servant relationship,
therefore, no punishment order can be
of the judgment are being quoted below:-
"10. There is another aspect of the
matter. In the present case Abdul Kareem
expired on 15.7.2011, i.e. before the
disciplinary authority could pass any order
on the enquiry report dated 3.7.2011. In
the circumstances therefore, the master and
servant relationship between Late Abdul
Kareem and the respondents also came to
an end with his death and therefore, the
impugned order dated 21.11.2011 could
not have been passed after the death of
Abdul Kareem.
11. In my opinion therefore the
disciplinary authority could not have
passed the order dated 21.11.2011
withholding the retiral dues and other
benefits of late Abdul Kareem. When
Abdul Kareem died on 15.7.2011 he could
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7172
not have been said to be a government
servant thereafter and therefore the order
dated 21.11.2011 on the face of it is a
wholly illegal and arbitrary order and has
no basis in law and cannot survive.
12. So far as the matter of
compassionate appointment of the
petitioner no. 1 is concerned, for the same
reasons that since the disciplinary authority
has not taken any decision regarding the
finding of guilt against late Abdul Kareem
prior to his death, it could not be said that
the charge had been established against
late Abdul Kareem as disciplinary
proceedings are concluded only with the
passing of the order of disciplinary
authority and not when the enquiry officer
submits his report.
13. In this view of the matter, the
writ petition is allowed and both the
impugned orders dated 21.11.2011 and
1.3.2012 are quashed. The respondents are
directed to take steps for payment of all
retiral benefits to the legal heirs of late
Abdul Kareem. So far as the order dated
1.3.2012 regarding rejection of the claim
of petitioner no .1 for compassionate
appointment is concerned, a direction is
issued to the District Magistrate, Deoria-
respondent no. 3 to take a decision afresh
in this regard having regard to the
educational qualification of the petitioner
no. 1 and availability of vacancy within a
period of two months from the date a
certified copy of this order is received in
his office."
In the aforesaid case, the dispute was
that the father of petitioner Abdul Kareem
was died on 15.07.2011 before the
disciplinary Authority could pass any order
on the inquiry report dated 3.7.2011 and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7172
the Court has held that after the death, no
such order can be passed against the
petitioner and further directed the authority
to pay full post retiral benefits.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
has also placed reliance upon the judgment
of this Court in the case of Onkar Singh
Verma Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Ors. 2018
(3) ADJ 272, decided on 09.01.2018 and
the relevant paragraph of the judgment is
quoted below:-
"Finally, the petitioner has died on
14.03.2017, during the pendency of this
writ petition and therefore, even if, there
had been any power in the rules vested in
respondent no.2 to conduct enquiry against
the petitioner after superannuation, now it
would not have been possible for him to
conduct any enquiry. Therefore, the
impugned order dated 21.09.2016, passed
by respondent no.2, Secretary/General
Manager, District Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
Etah, whereby, recovery of certain
amounts have been directed against the
petitioner from his gratuity, after his
retirement from service is hereby quashed.
The respondent no.2 is directed to release
the amount of gratuity of the petitioner, by
applying new pay scale, along with 7%
simple interest for inordinate delay in
making payment of the same to the
petitioner from the date of his
superannuation on 30.06.2013.
The writ petition is allowed. No
order as to costs."
In the aforesaid matter, the petitioner
died on 14.03.2017 during the pendency of
writ petition, therefore, the Court has held
that even there had been any power in the
rules vested to respondent No. 2 to conduct
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7172
the inquiry after superannuation, now it
would not have been possible for him to
conduct inquiry and quashed the order
impugned and directed to release the
amount of gratuity of petitioner as paid by
the petitioner in that petition.
Similar matter was also for
consideration before the Bombay High
Court in the case of Hirabhai Bhikanrao
Deshmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra and
another (1985) ILLJ 469 Bom decided on
10.10.1984, the Court has clearly held that
provision with regard to dismissal,
removal and suspension of the civil servant
do not permit holding of any further
enquiry into the conduct of such a civil
servant after his death. Relevant Paragraph
No. 6 of the judgment is being quoted
below:-
"6. The provisions with regard to
dismissal, removal and suspension of the
civil servant do not permit holding of any
further enquiry into the conduct of such a
civil servant after his death. Such
proceedings are intended to impose
departmental penalty and would abate by
reason of the death of civil servant. The
purpose of proceedings is to impose
penalty, if misconduct is established
against the civil servant. That can only be
achieved if the civil servant continues to be
in service. Upon broader view the
proceedings are quasi-criminal in the sense
it can result in fault finding and further
imposition of penalty. The character of
such proceedings has to be treated as
quasi-judicial for this purpose. In the light
of the character of the proceedings and the
nature of penalty like dismissal or removal,
or any other penalties, minor or major, it
has nexus to the contract of service.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7172
Therefore, if the person who has
undertaken that contract is not available, it
should follow that no proceedings can
continue. Thus when the proceedings are
quite personal in relation to such a contract
of service, the same should terminate upon
death of the delinquent. By reason of
death, such proceedings would terminate
and abate. We think that such a result is
also inferable from the provisions of Rule
152-B of the Bombay Civil Services
Rules."
Similar dispute has also come before
the Jharkhand High Court in the case of
Jayanti Devi Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.
2001 (49) BLJR 2179 decided on
01.05.2001, the Court after following the
decision of Bombay High Court had taken
the same view and directed the
respondents to pay all post retiral benefits
and 10 of the judgment are being quoted
below:-
"9. In the instant case admittedly the
delinquent employee died on 24.3.1999
and the Enquiry Officer submitted his
report on 30.8.1999. In the enquiry report
(Annexure F) the Enquiry Officer took
notice of the fact that the delinquent-
employee died on 24.3.1999. The Enquiry
Officer further took notice of the fact that
the delinquent-employee had requested the
respondents to keep the departmental
proceeding in abeyance till the disposal of
the case pending before him. However, the
Enquiry Officer after the death of
delinquent employee called upon the
respondents and on the basis of documents
produced by them submitted enquiry report
and on the basis of that report a formal
order of dismissal was passed. In my
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7172
opinion therefore the manner in which
respondents proceeded with the
departmental proceeding against the
delinquent employee, the enquiry report as
well as the order of dismissal is vitiated in
law and is null and void. I am, further of
the view that the widow of the deceased
employee cannot be deprived of her
legitimate claim of death-cum-retirement
benefits on the ground of dismissal of the
employee on the basis of departmental
proceeding initiated after 6 years of the
order of suspension and that to on the basis
of enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry
Officer after proceeding ex parte against
the deceased-employee who died much
before the date when the Enquiry Officer
proceeded with the matter and submitted
his report.
10. For the reasons aforesaid, this
writ application is allowed and the
respondents are directed to release all the
death-cum-retirement dues in favour of the
petitioner, who is widow of the deceased
employee as expeditiously as possible and
preferably within a period of 30 days from
the date of receipt/production of copy of
this order."
Learned counsel for respondent No.
4 has relied upon a judgment of Jharkhand
High Court in the case of Nilam Dubey vs.
State of Jharkhand & Ors. decided on
10.05.2013, in which the Court has held
that inquiry which was initiated against the
husband of petitioner can continue even
after the death of husband of petitioner and
show cause notice issued to son of
petitioner is permissible in law.
I have perused the judgment of
Jharkhand High Court, first of all the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7172
judgment is not applicable in the case of
petitioner for the reason that admittedly the
inquiry proceeding was initiated after the
death of husband of petitioner and
secondly this law is bad as after the death
of a person, how a show cause notice can
be issued to his son. Further it appears that
judgment Jharkhand High Court in the
case of Jayanti Devi Vs. State of Bihar and
Ors. 2001 (49) BLJR 2179 decided on
01.05.2001 was not brought into the
knowledge of Court in which the Court has
taken a view that no departmental
proceeding can be continued after the
death of employee.
After going through the judgments
and facts of the case, this Court is of the
view that against a dead person, neither
disciplinary proceeding can be initiated nor
any punishment order can be passed. In the
present case, facts are not disputed that
disciplinary proceeding was initiated
against husband of petitioner after his
death, which suffers from non application
of mind as well as contrary to the law laid
down by this Court as well as other High
Courts, therefore, the impugned order
dated 10.06.2013 is not sustainable and is
hereby quashed.
9. Even otherwise, it appears that the Corporation
has tried to fix the liability of entire embezzlement on
the shoulders of the dead employee by forfeiting an
amount of Rs.16,48,000/- against a total embezzlement
of Rs.6,43,88,390/-. No fact finding enquiry was
conducted by the respondents to find out as to whether
husband of the petitioner was solely responsible or
embezzlement took place in connivance with other
officers. No opportunity of hearing was given to the
petitioner against any such proposed recovery.
10. Thus, the order dated 30.05.2017 which provides
that against a loss of Rs.6,43,88,30/- the matter is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7172
closed by forfeiting an amount of Rs.16,48,000/-
payable to the petitioner is hereby quashed."
16. If the aforesaid settled proposition of law is applied to the present
case, then it is apparently clear that no employer-employee relationship
exists any more after the death of the petitioner's husband. As the
department has failed to initiate any action against the husband of the
petitioner for recovery of the loss being caused during the cotton season
of 2019-20 and 2020-21, now they are debarred from taking any action
against the petitioner who is the wife of deceased employee. They
cannot held the petitioner responsible for recovery of the said amount
once they themselves have failed to establish the guilt of her husband
while he was in service.
17. Under these circumstances, the issuance of letter dated
26/05/2022 by the respondents is per se illegal. Petitioner cannot be held
responsible for the recovery of Rs.73,84,116/- in absence of any enquiry
being conducted during the lifetime of the petitioner's husband.
Therefore, once the Authorities cannot initiate any action for recovery of
the said amount from the petitioner's husband during his lifetime, now
the Authorities are having no authority to withhold the terminal claims
of the petitioner pertaining to her deceased husband. Therefore, action
taken of the respondents is per se illegal. Accordingly, letter dated
26/05/2022 (Annexure-P/3) is hereby quashed.
18. The Authorities are directed to ascertain the entire terminal claims
of the deceased employee and calculate the arrears and extend the same
to the petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order. They are further directed to extend the
benefit of CCICS Scheme to the petitioner within the aforesaid period.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7172
19. Needless to say that the petitioner is entitled for an interest @ 6%
per annum towards the delay in making payment over the terminal dues
of the petitioner's husband. The arrears so calculated shall also carry
interest @ 6% from the date of entitlement till the date of its realization.
20. With aforesaid observations, petition stands allowed. No order as
to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
Shbhnkr
