- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40809 WP No. 4776 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 4776 OF 2023 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT JYOTHI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O LATE P. NAGARAJU, RESIDING AT NO.135, 10TH CROSS, 13TH MAIN ROAD, VENAKTASWAMY GARDEN, J.J.R. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560018. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.S. NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MUKKANNAPPA S B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMSISIONER BBMP, N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560033. Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40809 WP No. 4776 of 2023 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE EGNINEER BBMP, CHIKKAPETE DIVISION, NEAR NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL, OPP: TO INDIAN OIL PETROL BUNK, K.R. CIRCLE, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUBRAMANI M A.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.B12(2)PR-242/2002-03, 31.1.2003 PASSED BY THE R1 AT ANNEXURE-B AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.SA.KA.PA.A/GA.THY.NI/CHI.PE/P.R/15/22-23 DTD 02.11.2022 PASSED BY THE R2 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-F AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO SETTLE/PAY THE DEATH-CUM- RETIREMENT GRATUITY AND OTHER MONETARY BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40809 WP No. 4776 of 2023 ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking following prayers: (i) To quash the impugned order bearing No.B12(2)PR-242/2002-03, 31.01.2003 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure "B"; (ii) To quash the impugned endorsement bearing No.SA.KA.PA.A / GA.THY.NI / CHI.PE / P.R / 15 / 22-23 dated 02.11.2022 passed by respondent No.2 vide at Annexure "F" (iii) To direct the respondents to settle/pay the Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity (”DCRG") and other monetary benefits to the petitioner forthwith under the facts and circumstances of this case: 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: 3. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the late P.Nagaraju, who was working as a Pourakarmika in B.B.M.P. with Badge No.4738/B in Chamarajapete - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40809 WP No. 4776 of 2023 Ward. It is contented that the petitioner's husband joined BBMP on 03.02.1992 on compassionate ground. It is contended that her husband left the house on 14.06.2001 stating that he was going to office. However, unfortunately, he did not return home. As a result, the petitioner lodged a missing complaint of her husband before Jagajeevanram Nagar Police Station on 23.06.2001 with a request to trace out her husband. Respondent No.1 issued an endorsement on 22.11.2003 stating that her husband was dismissed from service due to unauthorised absenteeism from 14.06.2001 vide order dated 31.01.2003. 4. It is contented that on 22.11.2008, the jurisdictional Police issued an endorsement to the petitioner stating that despite all the efforts made, the petitioner's husband could not be traced. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40809 WP No. 4776 of 2023 5. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No.4655 of 2019 on the file of the learned V Addl. City Civil Court, Bangalore, making the respondents as the defendants with a prayer to declare that the petitioner's husband P.Nagaraju is deemed to have dead on 15.06.2001. 6. The Trial Court, after holding an enquiry, passed a judgment and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment dated 11.11.2020 and declared that the petitioner's husband is presumed to be dead on 15.06.2001 at Bangalore. The judgment and decree passed in the aforesaid suit has attained finality. 7. The petitioner, after the disposal of the said suit, submitted a representation with a request to issue a Death Certificate. The petitioner also submitted a representation to the respondents to release gratuity benefit. The respondents rejected the said application / representation vide endorsement dated - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40809 WP No. 4776 of 2023 02.11.2022 vide Annexure "F" stating that the petitioner's husband was terminated from service vide order dated 31.01.2003 vide Annexure "B". 8. This petition is filed seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to settle/pay the DCRG, gratuity and other monetary benefits to the petitioner. 9. The respondents filed a statement of objections contending that the husband of the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent for duty from 14.06.2001. As the unauthorised absence was for a very long period, respondent No.1, who is the disciplinary authority, decided to take a disciplinary action. Accordingly an Article of charges was issued on 23.03.2002 and as there was no response from P.Nagaraju, a paper publication was taken out on 29.07.2002. Even then there was no response, as such, respondent No.1 passed an order of termination vide Order dated 31.01.2003 invoking - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40809 WP No. 4776 of 2023 the provisions of Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957 and dismissed P.Nagaraju from service. 10. It was admitted that the petitioner, and her children filed a suit in O.S. No.4655 of 2019 and the said suit was decreed. It was also admitted that the petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondents seeking sanction of DCRG in her favour. It is contented that as per Rule 108 of Karnataka Civil Services Rules, if an official remains absent for duty without leave for a period of four months or more, s/he is liable to be dismissed or to be removed from service after following the due procedure. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner was missing from 14.06.2001 and the petitioner has lodged a missing - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40809 WP No. 4776 of 2023 complaint on 23.06.2001. In the meanwhile, the respondent issued an Article of Charges on 23.03.2002 against the dead person, and also dismissed the petitioner's husband from service vide order dated 31.01.2003. He submitted that the order of termination of the petitioner's husband was passed against a dead person. He submitted that the petitioner and her children filed a suit in O.S. No.4655 of 2019 wherein the respondents were parties in the said suit and the suit was decreed declaring that P.Nagaraju is presumed to be dead on 15.06.2001 at about 06.00 a.m. at Bengaluru within the jurisdiction of BBMP. It is held as a civil death. 13. Further, the respondents i.e., the defendants in the suit, were directed to make necessary entry in the register for the death maintained by them and to issue a Death Certificate to the plaintiffs therein, after collecting necessary fee. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40809 WP No. 4776 of 2023 14. The husband of the petitioner was missing from 14.06.2001 and when the Civil Court has declared that the husband of the petitioner is presumed to be dead with effect from 15.06.2001, the question of he attending the duty would not arise. Before terminating the husband of the petitioner from service, no enquiry was held. Thus, the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the husband of the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent for more than four months. The respondents have invoked Rule 1081 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, and terminated the husband of the petitioner from service on 31.01.2003. The action taken by the respondents is 1 108. Unless Government, in view of the special circumstances of the case, determines otherwise, an officer who remains absent from duty without leave for a period of four months or more may be liable to be dismissed or removed from service after following the procedure laid down in the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40809 WP No. 4776 of 2023 in compliance with the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. He also submitted that the petitioner was aware of the order of termination in 2003. However, they did not challenge the said order of termination. He submits that there is a delay in approaching this Court. Hence, on the ground of delay and laches, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 16. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 17. There is no dispute that P.Nagaraju was working in BBMP. On 14.06.2001, he left the house stating that he was going to attend the office. However, he did not return to the house. The wife of P.Nagaraju/the petitioner herein lodged a complaint before the Jagajeevanagar Police Station on 23.06.2001 with a request to trace out her husband. The said complaint was registered on 23.06.2001 in Crime No.188 of 2001. Respondent No.1 issued an endorsement on - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40809 WP No. 4776 of 2023 02.11.2022 stating that the husband of the petitioner was terminated from service due to his unauthorised absenteeism from 14.06.2001 for duty vide order dated 31.01.2003. The jurisdictional police issued an endorsement on 22.11.2008 stating that despite all efforts being made by them, they could not trace the husband of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no dispute that the husband of the petitioner was unheard for more than seven years and the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No.4655 of 2019 before the V Addl.City Civil Court, Bangalore seeking for a relief of declaration to declare that P.Nagaraju has been unheard for more than seven years and presumed to have dead on 15.06.2001, in the light of Section 1082 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 2 Section 108 – Burden of proving that person is alive who has not been heard of for seven years-Provided that when the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is proved that he has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is shifted to the person who affirms it. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40809 WP No. 4776 of 2023 18. The respondents were parties in the said suit as defendant Nos.1 and 2. 19. They filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. 20. The Trial Court recorded the evidence of the petitioner, i.e., the plaintiffs therein however, the respondents have neither led any oral evidence nor produced any documents. 21. The Trial Court after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/petitioner and her children, vide judgment dated 11.11.2020 and it was declared that the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 by name P.Nagaraju son of Peddanna is presumed to be dead on 15.06.2001 at about 06.00 a.m. at Bangalore within the jurisdiction of BBMP, Bengaluru, and accordingly, it was held as a civil - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40809 WP No. 4776 of 2023 death and directed the defendants i.e., the respondents herein to make a necessary entry in the register for the death maintained by them and to issue a death extract to the plaintiffs after collecting necessary fee. 22. When the Civil Court has already declared that the husband of the petitioner P. Nagaraju is presumed to be dead on 15.06.2001, as per Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, the question of petitioner's husband remaining unauthorisedly absent for duty from 14.06.2001 do not arise. 23. The respondents without considering the decree passed in O.S. No.4655 of 2019, wherein the Civil Court declared the death of P.Nagaraju as a civil death on 15.06.2001 at 06.00 a.m. at Bengaluru, vide Annexure 'F', has issued an endorsement rejecting the representation submitted by the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40809 WP No. 4776 of 2023 petitioner on the ground that petitioner's husband was unauthorisedly absent for four months. 24. As far as the reliance placed by the respondents on Rule 108 of Karnataka Civil Services Rules, is concerned, there is no dispute that in case a Government servant remains unauthorisedly absent for more than four months, the State Government can terminate him from service. 25. Admittedly, in the instant case, the Civil Court has declared that P.Nagaraju died on 15.06.2001. As such, there is no question of unauthorised absenteeism by the deceased P.Nagaraju from 14.06.2001. The judgment passed in O.S. No.4655 of 2019 has attained finality. 26. Further, the order of termination issued by the respondents is against a dead person. The order of termination passed against an employee who is already deceased is void and without legal effect. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40809 WP No. 4776 of 2023 The said principle is based on the legal maxim "Actio Personalis Moritur cum Persona", which means "a personal action dies with the person". A disciplinary action or termination proceedings is considered a personal action that ceases upon the death of the employee. The master and servant relationship ends with the death of the employee. Any disciplinary proceedings pending against a delinquent employee are automatically terminated or abate upon their death. 27. Respondent No.1, without considering the said aspect, has passed an order of termination which is a nullity in the eyes of law. 28. The petitioner being the legal representative or legal heir of the deceased P.Nagaraju is entitled to all monetary benefits. 29. The respondents have committed an error in issuing an endorsement dated 02.11.2022 vide Annexure "F" - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40809 WP No. 4776 of 2023 and the impugned order of termination dated 31.01.2003 vide Annexure "B" both are arbitrary and perverse and same are liable to be quashed. 30. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (I) The writ petition is allowed. (II) The impugned order dated 31.01.2003 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure "B" and impugned endorsement dated 02.11.2022 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure "F" are quashed. (III) The respondents are directed to settle/pay the death cum retirement gratuity and all other terminal benefits to the petitioner within eight - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40809 WP No. 4776 of 2023 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5