[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Meena Mohanta vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 10 March, 2026

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                  W.P.(C) No.532 of 2026

      In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
  Constitution of India.
                            ..................

        Meena Mohanta                                ....               Petitioner

                                                 -versus-

        State of Odisha & Ors.                       ....              Opposite Parties


       For Petitioner         :       Mr. U.C. Mohanty, Advocate


       For Opp. Parties :             Mr. S.P. Das, Addl. Standing Counsel

PRESENT:

   THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date of Hearing: 10.03.2026 and Date of Judgment: 10.03.2026
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. U.C. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the

Petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel

appearing for the Opp. Parties. Instruction provided in Court be kept

in record.

// 2 //

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following

prayer:-

"In the aforesaid circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application and issue a RULE NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why this writ application shall not be allowed and if the Opposite Parties failed to show cause or show insufficient cause, the said Rule may be made absolute and on hearing the parties through their counsel, this Hon'ble Court be further pleased to:-

i) Issue appropriate Writ/Writs in holding that the actions of the Opp. Parties in not closing the Departmental Proceeding drawn vide Order No. CE.60/2001-15166 dated 31.03.2003 in view of the Guidelines of the G.A Department No. 19806 dated.

21.08.2012 under Annexure-7 is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable & direct the Opp. Parties to close the same.

ii) This Hon'ble Court further be pleased to issue nature of appropriate writ/writs in the mandamus directing the Opp. Parties to release the retiral benefits of the Husband of the Petitioner who died on 07.09.2020 and to grant the final family pension as per the OCS Pension Rules, 1992 along with interest & all consequential service benefits in her favour within a stipulated period.

iii) This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass such other appropriate Writ/Writs, direction/directions, order/orders as would be deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioner.

And for which act of kindness the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray."

// 3 //

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that

Petitioner who happens to be the wife of the deceased employee,

contended that while in service the proceeding in question was

initiated against the deceased employee vide memorandum

dtd.31.03.2003. It is contended that in the said proceeding prior to

passing of the final order in accordance with law, the deceased

employee died on 07.09.2020.

4.1. However, on such death of the deceased employee on 07.09.2020,

when the proceeding was never dropped and the retiral benefits as due

and admissible to the deceased employee was not released along with

family pension, the present writ petition was filed inter alia with the

aforesaid prayer.

4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since

during pendency of the proceeding the deceased employee died on

07.09.2020, the proceeding should have been dropped having been

abated. In support of his submission reliance was placed to a decision

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.K.S. Rathore (Dead)

through LRs Vs. Union of India & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 7028 of

2022) decided on 28.09.2022. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 7, 8 & 9 of

the decision has taken the following view:-

// 4 //

"7. Admittedly, no final order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority, before the death of the original appellant. Though the order of remand passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, is dated 02.02.2015, the Disciplinary Authority could not perhaps pass the final order, due to the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court and the pendency of the above appeal before this Court.

8. Today even if we dismiss the above appeal, no final order can be passed in the disciplinary proceedings, against a dead person. The disciplinary proceedings have actually abated. In other words the dismissal of the above appeal will have the same consequences as the appeal being allowed.

9. In view of the above, the above appeal is disposed of holding that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the original appellant stand abated. As a consequence, the legal representatives of the original appellant will be entitled to all the benefits that the original appellant would have been entitled to, as per the rules. The respondents may pass orders in accordance with the rules, about the benefits lawfully admissible to the original appellant and disburse the same within a period of 12 weeks. There will be no order as to costs."

4.3. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel

appearing for the Petitioner contended that since the proceeding in

view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court stands abated,

appropriate direction be issued to the Opp. Parties to extend the retiral

// 5 //

benefits as due and admissible to the deceased employee and so also

the family pension in favour of the Petitioner from the date of her

entitlement within a reasonable time.

5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel relying on the guideline issued

under Annexure-7 so issued by the General Administration

Department, contended that where prior to finalization of the

proceeding, the deceased employee died and the proceeding is closed

because of such death of the charged officer, the legal heirs of the

deceased Govt. servant can be held liable, if it can be proved that they

have inherited any assets acquired by the Government Servant with

the help of the defalcated money. It is accordingly contended that

liberty be given to the Department to proceed against the legal heirs of

the deceased employee in terms of Annexure-7.

5.1. It is also contended that Since the delinquent officer was held

liable to an extent of Rs.4,06,352/- as per the enquiry report submitted

by the enquiry officer, in view of the guideline issued under

Annexure-7, the Department be granted liberty to proceed against the

legal heirs of the deceased employee for recovery of the amount

involved.

// 6 //

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and

considering the submission made, this Court finds that the proceeding

in question was initiated against the deceased employee vide

Memorandum dtd.31.03.2003. It is not disputed that during pendency

of the proceeding and prior to its disposal in accordance with law, the

deceased employee died on 07.09.2020.

6.1. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of A.K.S. Rathore as

cited (supra), since the deceased employee prior to finalization of the

proceeding died on 07.09.2020, it is the view of this Court that the

proceeding stands abated against the deceased employee and it cannot

proceed any further.