1 2025:CGHC:49965 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 11610 of 2025 1. Manju Rajput W/o Late Shri Rajesh Singh Rajput Aged About 52 Years R/o House No. 182, Jawahar Nagar, Durg District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation Through Managing Director, Head Office, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Manager (Account) Chhattisgarh Ware Housing Corporation Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Manager (Technical) Chhattisgarh Ware Housing Corporation Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 07/10/2025 1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is widow of Late Rajesh Singh Rajput, who died in harness on 27.5.2021 while working as Technical Assistant in respondent SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 Chhattisgarh Ware Housing Corporation. After the death of husband of petitioner, respondent authority concerned issued an order of recovery of Rs.4,63,358/-, which is not permissible as recovery order against deceased employee is not sustainable. He contended that as case of petitioner is squarely covered from the order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No.7367/2023 (Smt. Smita Shrivastava vs. Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation and ors), therefore, this petition may be heard finally at admission stage. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State does not dispute submission of learned counsel for petitioner about hearing of this petition finally at admission stage. 3. With the consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally at admission stage. 4. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging recovery of Rs.4,36,358/- from retiral dues of deceased husband of petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner’s husband died in harness on 27.5.2021 while serving as Technical Assistant in respondent Corporation. Pursuant to direction issued by this Court vide order dated 11.9.2023 in WPS No.6213/2023, retiral dues of deceased husband of petitioner has been settled vide order dated 21.12.2023 3 (Annexure P-5), however, in compliance of order dated 13.12.2023 (Annexure P-4), recovery of Rs.4,63,358/- has been made from retiral dues of deceased husband of petitioner on the ground of loss of stock to the tune of Rs.4,63,358/- to the Corporation when the husband of petitioner was in service. He submits that any proceedings quantifying the liability against the deceased husband of petitioner, during his lifetime, has not been commenced and concluded, therefore, after the death of petitioner’s husband, no recovery can be made from the retiral dues or gratuity of deceased employee and such an action on the part of respondent authority concerned is arbitrary and not sustainable. He further submits that even recovery of amount from retiral dues of deceased husband of petitioner is made without issuing notice or granting opportunity of hearing. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposing submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner, would submit that upon enquiry, it has been found that during service tenure of husband of petitioner, total loss of Rs.4,63,358/- due to excess storage than prescribed standards has been occasioned, respondent Corporation decided to recover this amount from the retiral dues of deceased employee. Therefore, a sum of Rs.4,63,358/- has been deducted from gratuity of deceased husband of 4 petitioner, which was paid to petitioner. He submits that the deceased employee had caused loss to the Corporation which is duly proved in the inquiry which is conducted, and losses caused during tenure of an employee are recoverable from his retiral dues including gratuity and provident fund to safeguard financial interests of the respondent Corporation. He, however, fairly submits that impugned recovery order has been issued after the death of employee. 7. I have heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the documents available in record. 8. Sole question for determination in this writ petition is whether respondent Corporation justified in effecting recovery from retiral benefits of deceased employee? 9. Perusal of order dated 13.12.2023, pursuant to which recovery has been made from retiral benefits of deceased employee, would show that a Committee was constituted vide order dated 5.12.2023 with respect to determination of loss of stock reflecting in storage wing and the said Committee upon enquiry submitted its report dated 8.12.2023 recording that storage loss to the tune of Rs.4,63,358/- was found during posting of deceased husband of petitioner in Kirodimal Nagar and Dongargarh branches of respondent Corporation. Therefore, it was decided by respondent Corporation to recover the said amount from the dues payable to petitioner 5 being legal heirs of deceased employee. Further perusal of order dated 13.12.2023 reveals that out of aforementioned amount, a sum of Rs.47,694/- relates to deduction made by the Food Corporation of India in the year 2011-12 and 2012- 13. From the order dated 13.12.2023, Annexure P-4, it is clear that there is no whisper about issuance of any show-cause notice to petitioner’s husband during his service tenure asking for recovery of any amount or initiation of any proceedings by respondent Corporation. It is only after the death of husband of petitioner, the inquiry / proceeding for determination of storage loss was commenced. 10. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for respondent Corporation could not point out any provision of law which empowers the Corporation to initiate an enquiry/ proceeding against a dead employee or recovery. 11. In case of Hirabhai Bhikanrao Deshmukh vs State of Maharashtra and another, reported in (1985) ILLJ 469 Bom, decided on 10.10.1984, the employee died during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and in such situation the Court has held thus:- “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 6 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. 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.” 12. In case of Jayanti Devi vs State of Bihar and ors, reported in (2001) 3 BLJR 2179, Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand has also taken the same view and held that an order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority after the death of the deceased employee is vitiated in law and is null and void. Relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment rendered in the case of Jayanti Devi (supra) quoted herein below:- 7 "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 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 (six) years of the order of suspension and that too 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 8 as possible and preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.” 13. In case of Smt. Rajeshwari Devi vs. State of UP & ors, reported in 2011 (2) ADJ 643, decided on 7.1.2011, the Court has held that as soon as a person dies, he breaks all his connection with the worldly affairs, therefore, no disciplinary proceeding can be initiated against him. Relevant paras of the said 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. 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 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 9 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..” 14. Again, in case of Gulam Gausul Azam and others vs. State of UP and others, reported in 2014 (5) ADJ 558, the Court has observed thus:- “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 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.” 15. Recently, in WP No.2592/2025 (Yogita Harinkhede vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & ors), decided on 11.2.2025, referring to decision of the Division Bench of MP High Court in 10 WP No.17214/2017, parties being Rekha Tomar vs MP Warehousing and Logistics Corporation and others, has held that impugned recovery being made from the petitioner therein after death of deceased employee is not sustainable. Para-9 of the said order is extracted below for ready reference:- “9.Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of pleadings and documents placed on record, it is apparently clear that in the present case also, recovery is being made from the widow of an employee who was belonging to Class-III service. The recovery is being made after death of deceased employee from his widow. Thus, in view of the case laws cited above, the impugned recovery being made from the petitioner vide Annexure P/4 cannot be sustained.” 16.The position of law which emerges from above decisions is that once an employee dies, no disciplinary proceeding or inquiry can be initiated or continued against him and consequently, no liability can be determined thereafter as after the death of an employee takes place, relationship of employer and employee also stand broken for the purposes of departmental inquiry. Even if death takes place during pendency of departmental enquiry/proceeding, the same would stand abated. Any attempt to recover alleged dues or losses after death, without a prior adjudication or opportunity of hearing, would be arbitrary and violative of principles of 11 natural justice as well as Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. 17. Even in case of a retirement of an employee from service, continuation of disciplinary proceeding in absence of any rules, is held to be bad in law by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State Bank of India vs A.N. Gupta & ors, reported in (1997) 8 SCC 60 wherein it was clearly held that there has to be specific provision under the law to take action against the person who has ceased to be in service. 18. In case of Bhagirathi Jena vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and others, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 666 Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para-6 & 7 of the said decision has observed thus:- “6.It will be noticed from the abovesaid regulations that no specific provision was made for deducting any amount from the provident fund consequent to any misconduct determined in the departmental enquiry nor was any provision made for continuance of the departmental enquiry after superannuation. 7. In view of the absence of such a provision in the abovesaid regulations, it must be held that the Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral benefits of the appellant. There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the appellant and nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. Once the appellant had 12 retired from service on 30-6-1995, there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement." 19. In case of Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited, Andhra Pradesh v. K. Satyanarayana Rao, reported in (2010) 15 SCC 322, Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 14 & 16 as held thus :- “14.There cannot be any doubt or dispute that an employer can initiate a disciplinary proceedings and/or continue the same only in terms of the rules framed by it. It is also a well-settled law that the disciplinary proceedings are initiated only when a charge-sheet is issued. 16.In absence of any rules, therefore, a disciplinary proceeding against a retired employee should not have been continued. The judgment of the High Court, in our opinion, cannot be said to be faulty. We, however, keeping in view the subsequent documents brought before us by the appellant, would observe that, in future, in any other case or before any other authority, the Corporation would be at liberty to place all the relevant documents and to that effect the question of law raised by the appellant herein shall remain open." 13 20. In case of Dev Prakash Tewari vs Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow and others, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 260, it was observed thus:- "8. Once the appellant had retired from service on 31-3-2009, there was no authority vested with the respondents for continuing the disciplinary proceeding even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to get full retiral benefits." 21. In view of well settled law, as discussed above, as also in view of admitted position that the proceeding for recovery of loss as also the order impugned is passed after the death of husband of petitioner, therefore, the entire action taken by respondent Corporation for recovery of amount is ex facie bad as in any case, no inquiry/ proceeding can be initiated/drawn against a dead person because after the death of an employee no employer-employee relationship exists. Respondent Corporation may have initiated inquiry proceeding during service tenure of husband of petitioner or at least before his death, but after death, entire inquiry proceeding as well as impugned order dated 13.12.2023 is bad in law and not sustainable. 22. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 13.12.2023 (Annexure P-4) directing for recovery of 14 Rs.4,63,358/- is hereby set aside. Respondents are directed to release/refund the amount of Rs.4,63,358/- recovered from retiral benefits of deceased husband of petitioner together with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of recovery till actual payment is made. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-