Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neetu vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 2 November, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139396
CM-18500-CWP-2023 in/and
CWP-1658-2016 2023:PHHC:139396 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(102+207) CM-18500-CWP-2023 in/and
CWP-1658-2016
Date of Decision : November 02, 2023
Neetu .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Sukhdev Singh Gopera, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
CM-18500-CWP-2023
As prayed for, the application is allowed.
Replication to the written statement filed on behalf of
respondents No. 3 and 4 along with Annexure P-13 is taken on record.
CWP-1658-2016
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in the present
case, after the death of the husband of the petitioner, recovery has been
effected while giving the service benefits to the petitioner in respect of the
disciplinary proceedings which were pending against her husband at the
time of his death, which action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal as
no order causing prejudice to a dead employee can be passed after his death
and in the present case, the order of recovery has been passed after the death
of the employee and impugned orders dated 19.05.2015 and 24.06.2015
(Annexures P-8 and P-9) have been passed not only after the retirement but
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139396
CM-18500-CWP-2023 in/and
after the death of the husband of the petitioner, which is arbitrary and
illegal.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
3. As per the settled principle of law settled by this Court in CWP
No.21917 of 2016 titled as Shiksha Devi vs. Haryana State Federation of
Consumers Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd, decided on 02.08.2022, no
order causing prejudice to a dead employee can be passed. The relevant
paragraph of the said judgment is as under:-
"11. Even otherwise, even if it is assumed for the sake of
argument that respondent had jurisdiction to issue the
chargesheets to the late husband of the petitioner even after
his retirement, then also the impugned order of recovery by
way of punishment can not be sustained for the reason that no
proceeding can continue against a dead employee. The
husband of the petitioner unfortunately died on 16.05.2015. It
is the conceded position that till the said date, none of the
chargesheets had attained finality so as to give jurisdiction to
the respondent to pass any orders on the chargesheet. After
the death of employee, disciplinary proceedings abate, hence,
as the husband of the petitioner had already passed away,
proceeding initiated by the respondents in respect of three
chargesheets could not have continued any further. Keeping in
view the said factual position, the recovery of Rs.6,44,890/-
which has been imposed upon late husband of the petitioner is
held to be bad and accordingly quashed."
4. Learned State counsel has not been able to dispute the fact that
the impugned orders dated 19.05.2015 and 24.06.2015 (Annexures P-8 and
P-9) were passed after the retirement of the husband of the petitioner as well
as after he died but submits that notices for recovery had already been
issued while he was employed but the same were yet to be finalized before
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139396
CM-18500-CWP-2023 in/and
his death.
5. As far as the contention of the learned State counsel that the
charge-sheet was served upon the late husband of the petitioner prior to his
death, though the order was passed after his death, should be treated as valid
order, the said argument is to be considered in light of the settled principle
of law. The disciplinary proceedings, only concludes when the order of
punishment is passed. In case, an employee dies prior to the conclusion of
the disciplinary proceedings, the said disciplinary proceedings abate.
Hence, once the late husband of the petitioner died, the disciplinary
proceedings pending against him abated and therefore, there was no
jurisdiction with the respondents to pass an order imposing punishment
after the proceedings got abated.
6. The arguments raised by the learned State counsel cannot be
accepted in view of the above mentioned facts and law.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present
case, where it is a conceded fact that the impugned orders were passed after
the death of the employee concerned that the question of law raised in the
present petition is covered by Shiksha Devi's case (supra) and the present
petition is also disposed of in same terms. Orders dated 19.05.2015 and
24.06.2015 (Annexures P-8 and P-9) are set aside. Any recovery made
from the petitioner be refunded back to the petitioner within a period of two
months from the receipt of copy of this order.
8. The present writ petition is allowed in above terms.
November 02, 2023 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139396
3 of 3
