1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8008 of 2018 1 - Smt. Monika Benjamin ( Died Through Lrs) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 01-05-2025 1.1 - Jennifar Sakshi Benjamin D/o Sunil Kumar Benjamin Aged About 20 Years R/o C/o Amod Prakash Qtr. No. 2a Street No. 74 Sector - 6 Near Mgm School Bhilai Nagar Durg Distric - Durg (C.G.) 1.2 - Angel Benjamin D/o Late Sunil Kumar Benjamin Aged About 13 Years Through Legal Guardian Elder Sister Jennifar Sakshi Benjamin D/o Late Sunil Kumar Benjamin R/o C/o Amod Prakash Qtr. No. 2a Street No. 74 Sector - 6 Near Mgm School Bhilai Nagar Durg Distric - Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Skill Development Technical Education And Employment Department, Chamber No. 52/3, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Employment And Training, Directorate, First Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Commissioner Employment And Training Directorate, First Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Government Industrial Training Centre, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - Principal Women Industrial Training Instutite, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) NIRMALA RAO 2 For Petitioner/s : Shri Vivek Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20.04.2026 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the impugned orders dated 06-09-2018 (Annexure P-1) as well as the order dated 09-05-2016 (Annexure P-2). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order to direct the respondent authorities to grant the benefit of all the retrial benefit to the petitioner as General Provident Fund, Gratuity, Leave Encashment, difference amount of salary of period of suspension and the amount of pension withheld by the respondent department till date in relation to the husband of petitioner with interest for not paying the retirement benefit to the petitioner after the death of her husband till date. 10.3 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the husband of Smt. Monika Benjamin, namely Sunil Kumar Benjamin was posted as a Training Superintendent at the Industrial Training Institute, District Janjgir – Champa. During his service tenure, he was placed under suspension and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. He would contend that during pendency of the departmental enquiry, he died on 5.3.2014 and thereafter, an order of recovery dated 6.9.2018 3 was issued by respondent No.4 to the tune of Rs.7,23,800/-. He would submit that the said order was challenged by wife of the petitioner, namely Smt. Monika Benjamin, who died on 18.4.2021 and her legal representatives are pursuing this matter. He would contend that upon the death of a government servant, departmental proceedings cannot be continued, and consequently, no recovery order could have been validly passed in such proceedings. He would submit that the impugned order dated 6.9.2018 was passed by respondent No.4 without conducting a full-fledged departmental enquiry and prays to set aside the order impugned. It is also informed by counsel for the petitioner that an interim order was previously passed in favour of the petitioner and no recovery was effected during the life-time of government servant. Accordingly, he would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose. He would submit that the government servant had committed financial irregularities, which necessitated the initiation of a departmental enquiry; however, he passed away before the enquiry could be concluded. He would contend that as the government servant caused a financial loss to the department, the recovery order of Rs.7,23,800/- was passed by respondent No.4 on 6.9.2018 according to the circular dated 7.6.2016. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 4 5. It is not in dispute that the departmental enquiry initiated against the government servant could not be completed on account of his death. It is a well settled principle of law that disciplinary proceedings may only be initiated or continued during the lifetime of a government servant (or post-retirement only as specifically permitted by service rules). In the present case, as the government servant died during the pendency of the departmental enquiry, any order subsequently passed against him is legally unsustainable. In the absence of a concluded departmental enquiry where guilt is established, a recovery order lacks legal sanctity. This position is supported by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhagirathi Jena vs. Board of Directors, OSFC and Others, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 666. 6. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the order Annexure-P/1 is hereby quashed. Regarding the claim for unpaid salary during the suspension period and the interest thereon, this Court observes that such a determination falls within the purview of the employer or the Competent Authority, therefore, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation before respondent No.4 and the said authority shall decide this issue expeditiously, preferably within a period of 90 days. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi