ORDER : Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. 1. The petitioners are wife and son of deceased employee- Dwarika Prasad Kurrey have filed this writ petition assailing order dated 03.06.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 4/ Principal, Government Engineering College, Bilaspur by which services of employee have been terminated on the account that he remained absent from duty from 05.11.2005 without prior intimation. The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of direction to the respondent authorities to consider case of petitioner No. 2 (son) for grant of compassionate appointment. 2. The brief facts as reflected from records are that husband of petitioner No. 1 namely Dwarika Prasad Kurrey was appointed as Workshop Instructor in the year 1993 and posted at Government Engineering College, Bilaspur and continued his service since 2005 and he remained absent from duty from 05.11.2005. On account of absent from duties, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him vide order dated 20.05.2024 and vide impugned order dated 03.06.2024 his services have been terminated though husband of petitioner No. 1 expired on 22.12.2023 i.e. prior to initiation of enquiry and issuance of termination order dated 03.06.2024. Hence, this petition has been filed by petitioner No. 1 (wife) & petitioner No. 2 (son) for setting aside impugned order dated 03.06.2024 and also prayed for grant of back wages, retiral dues and all other consequential benefits including compassionate appointment. 3. The State has filed the return on 03.12.2025 mainly contending that the petitioner remained absent from duty which clearly amounts to abandonment of service. It has also been contended that the petitioner’s husband remained absent from 05.11.2005 and he came to office to resume duty on 21.02.2011 and submitted multiple unfit certificates which were rejected by the respondent No.4 for remaining absent for more than 5 years. It has also been contended that the State Government has issued circular to take disciplinary action against the unauthorized Government Servant, as such his services have been terminated due to unauthorized absent. It is further submitted that when the termination order was passed at that time there was no information to the department that the employee died on 22.12.2023, therefore, the termination was issued against him. It is further submitted that when the termination order was passed at that time there was no information to the department that the employee died on 22.12.2023, therefore, the termination was issued against him. It is further submitted that even the government servant remained out of employment without any salary the family of the deceased employee survived for such a long period of two decades, therefore, the petitioner No. 2 is not entitled to get compassionate appointment and would pray for dismissal of the petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the impugned termination order has been passed after death of the employee and no punishment or termination order can be passed after death of employee, therefore, the impugned termination order is void ab initio and deserves to be quashed by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that a departmental enquiry was initiated against him vide order dated 20.05.2024 and after following due process of law, the services of the employee have been terminated vide order dated 03.06.2024, as such there is no illegality on the part of the respondents. The Respondents have also placed on record copy of enquiry report dated 01.06.2024 and would submit that the petitioners participated before the fact finding committee constituted by the respondents wherein the petitioner appeared and along with medical record on 21.02.2011 thereafter a charge-sheet was issued and he remained absent from duty. He would further submit that various correspondences were made with the employee asking him to report on duty positively but he failed to join his duty. He would further submit that Clause 11 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010 (for short “the Rules, 2010”) deals with the maximum period of absence from duty, stating that no government servant can be granted leave for a continuous period of five years and beyond this limit, the Government servant is considered to have resigned, unless exceptional circumstances warrant a different decision from the Governor. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 11 of the Rules, 2010 provides that if a government servant remains absent for more than five continuous years (excluding foreign service), he is presumed to have been resigned. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 11 of the Rules, 2010 provides that if a government servant remains absent for more than five continuous years (excluding foreign service), he is presumed to have been resigned. He would further submit that the employee remained absent from duty from 05.11.2005 till his death which is more than five years without prior intimation, therefore, he was presumed to have been resigned from duty and accordingly, impugned termination has been passed after his death, as such they cannot claim any relief as the government servant deemed to have been resigned from service and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 7. The submission made by the State that the employee is deemed to have been resigned in view of Clause 11(2) of the Rules, 2010, is being considered by this Court. To appreciate the aforesaid submission, it is expedient for this Court to go through the aforementioned clause of the Rules, 2010 which is extracted below:- “ Rule 11. Maximum period of absence from duty - (1) No Government servant shall be granted leave of any kind for a continuous period exceeding five years. (2) A Government servant who remains absent from duty for a continuous period exceeding five years other than on foreign service, with or without leave, shall be deemed to have resigned from the Government service unless the Governor, in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case, otherwise determines: Provided that a reasonable opportunity shall be given to that Government servant to explain the reasons for such absence before the provisions of sub-rule (2) are invoked.” 8. From perusal of clause 11 of the Rules, 2010, it is quite vivid that before taking recourse available to the employee, it is expedient for the State to give an opportunity of hearing to the government servant to explain the reasons for such absence before the provisions of sub-rule (2) are invoked. From perusal of clause 11 of the Rules, 2010, it is quite vivid that before taking recourse available to the employee, it is expedient for the State to give an opportunity of hearing to the government servant to explain the reasons for such absence before the provisions of sub-rule (2) are invoked. Considering the submission made by the State that various correspondences were made with the employee asking him to join his duties and when he could not join his duties, the termination order could have been passed invoking sub-rule (2) when petitioner was alive, but not after death as after death everything is abated, therefore, the submission made by the State that the employee deemed to have resigned from duties, deserves to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned termination order has been passed after death of the employee which is being considered by this Court. From perusal of record, it is quite vivid that the petitioner expired on 22.12.2023 whereas the departmental enquiry was initiated on 14.05.2024, report of fact finding enquiry was submitted on 01.06.2024 and services of the employee have been terminated on 03.06.2024. It is quite vivid that the entire proceeding has been initiated after death of the employee which is nullity in the law, therefore, the impugned termination order dated 03.06.2024 deserves to be and is hereby set aside, in light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.K.S. Rathore (dead) through Lrs vs. Union of India and Anr. Passed in Civil Appeal No. 7028 of 2022 decided on 28 September 2022 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under in paragraph 8 & 9. 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. 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. 10. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in WP No. 13655 of 2017 decided on 06.07.2023 in case of Smt. Veena Dhurvey vs. State of MP has held in paragraph 7 and 8 has held as under:- 7.It is well established principle of law that no departmental action can be initiated against a dead person for the simple reason that on the death of employee, the employer- employee relationship would come to an end. 8. This Court in the case of Smt. Rekha Tomar Vs. M.P. Warehousing and Logistics Corporation and Others by order dated 30th August, 2022 passed in W.P. No.17214/2017 (Gwalior Bench) has held as under: “Whether a departmental enquiry can be initiated against a dead employee, if yes,then whether the respondents have followed the said procedure or not ? 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 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. 11. Again Allahabad High Court in the case of Pushpa Devi vs. State of UP in Writ A. No. 15004 of 2022 decided on 17.02.2023 has held as under:- So far as legal provisions are concerned, this issue came up before this Court 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 to the widow. 12. 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 to the widow. 12. Considering the above factual and legal position, that after death no enquiry can be conducted, therefore, the subsequent termination order dated 03.06.2024 terminating the service of the petitioner is set aside as the proceedings stand abated on account of death of Government Servant on 22.12.2023. Consequently, it is held that the petitioner remained in service till his death on 22.12.2023, therefore, the respondent/State is directed to calculate retirement dues of deceased employee as per the last salary drawn by him i.e. from 05.11.2005. The petitioner’s No.1 husband was appointed on 01.12.1993 and he expired on 22.12.2023 thus he has completed 30 years of service, as such the petitioner No.1 is entitled to get family pension, gratuity of her husband and all other service benefits which she is entitled to get. The respondents shall calculate these dues within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 13. Learned State counsel would submit that the application submitted by the petitioners for grant of compassionate appointment has already been rejected on the count that petitioner’s No.2 father has been terminated, therefore, his application for grant of compassionate appointment cannot be considered. Thus the rejection of the application on the count of termination of the petitioner’s No.1 husband deserves to be set aside on the count that this Court in foregoing paragraph has already quashed the termination order. In such situation, it is directed that petitioner No.2 would submit a fresh application for grant of compassionate appointment, which will be considered by the respondent/State in accordance with the policy, circular prevailing on the subject within three months from the date of receipt of the application. 14. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition is allowed. No order as to cost.