1 102-wp 7277.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 7277 OF 2026 ( THE UNION OF INDIA, NEHRU YUWA KENDRA SANGATHAN DEPT./MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS, SPORTS THR. SECY. VS SMT. NIRMALA WD/O AKHILESH PRASAD MISHRA AND OTHERS. ) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or the directions, Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Ms. Ashwini Athalye, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Y. R. Kinkhede, Advocate for respondent No.1/caveator. CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 01, 2026 1) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2) In short, it is the case of the Department that the non- applicant / respondent herein had committed certain misdeeds, which resulted in the initiation of a departmental enquiry and dismissal from services on 09/12/2020. The action was challenged in O.A.No.434/2022 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was preferred by two delinquents including original applicant-Akhilesh and, ultimately, the matter was remanded back. During the pendency of the proceedings, the employee Akhilesh died on 11/04/2021 and thus Tribunal did not remand the mater to the disciplinary authority. 3) The Tribunal has observed in paragraph 16 that, since the employee had died during the pendency of the proceedings, the further enquiry proceedings could not be remanded. It is this order which is challenged by the department contending that the KOLHE 2026:BHC-NAG:13114-DB 2 102-wp 7277.2026.odt death of the employee would not be a ground enough to exonerate the employee and refusal to interfere with the impugned order. 4) With the help of respective counsel, we have gone through the record of the case and have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced. 5) It is an admitted position that the employee died after filing of the Original Application. Thus, it is clear that the employer-employee relationship has come to an end. That being so, the course adopted by the Tribunal and the findings recorded in paragraph 16 of the impugned order are legal and proper. Once the employer-employee relationship comes to an end, there cannot be a question of continuation of any enquiry proceedings and imposition of punishment. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any statutory provision supporting her contention. As such we do not find any perversity in the findings given by the Tribunal or any jurisdictional error. 6) In that view of the matter, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. ) ( ANIL S. KILOR, J. ) KOLHE Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 03/10/2026 14:39:11