JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This is really a strange kind of case. One Sri Ghasi Ram working as Mali in Nagar Nigam Bareilly, was placed under suspension on 21.7.2005 and a charge-sheet was issued to him from the office of Nagar Nigam on 26.7.2005. The delinquent employee Ghasi Ram died on 31.7.2005/1.8.2005 and this information was received in the office of Nagar Nigam on 2.8.2005. Despite, the enquiry officer submitted report on 5.10.2005 stating that he gave opportunity to the delinquent employee which he did not avail and, thereafter, held all the charges proved against the dead employee. 2. The disciplinary authority, having noticed the fact that Ghasi Ram has died while in suspension, agreed with the enquiry report holding that the charges stand proved and the deceased employee was guilty of the misconduct. He also held that had he been alive, a major penalty would have been awarded but after his death, penalty of dismissal is not possible, hence as a measure of penalty, all the retiral dues including provident fund etc. shall not be paid to his legal heirs and they shall also not be considered for compassionate appointment. 3. A representation was made by the petitioner; the widow of the deceased employee, that no enquiry proceeding could have continued after death of the deceased employee concerned, hence, continuance of proceedings and impugned order of punishment are illegal. Further that there is no provision authorizing the punishing authority to withhold as penalty, the retiral benefits including the provident fund of the deceased employee, which is a right of the legal heirs after death of the employee concerned. Thirdly, she also represented that right of compassionate appointment also cannot be denied since it is not prescribed as one of the punishment under the Rules. She also pointed out that in fact till the death of the employee concerned, even the alleged charge-sheet was not served upon him. She, therefore, requested not only for payment of all dues, after the death of the employee concerned, but also to provide compassionate appointment to one of the member of family. This representation has been rejected by order dated 26.3.2007 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) by Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Bareilly. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no provision authorizing the respondent- Nagar Nigam to continue with the departmental enquiry after death of the employee concerned. This representation has been rejected by order dated 26.3.2007 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) by Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Bareilly. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no provision authorizing the respondent- Nagar Nigam to continue with the departmental enquiry after death of the employee concerned. In respect to the Government servants, it is provided that on the death of the Government servant, the disciplinary proceeding, if pending, shall stand abated. He submits that the same would apply to the case of petitioner’s husband also. It is contended that punishments which have been imposed upon the heirs of deceased employee are not provided in the rules. Moreover, punishments are not imposed on the deceased employee, but in fact have fallen on the legal heirs of deceased employee which is not permissible in law since the respondent-Nagar Nigam had no authority to deprive any benefit accruing to legal heirs of a deceased employee, by means of an order of punishment which would fall upon the legal heirs. Lastly, it is contended that the enquiry officer says that the notice of oral hearing was issued to the delinquent employee by pasting notice at his residence though it is also mentioned in the enquiry report that even before that, the employee concerned had died, meaning thereby the entire proceedings are nothing but a farce and a nullity in the eyes of law. 5. Sri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the Nagar Nigam contended that the employee having died after issuance of the charge-sheet, it will not affect pendency of enquiry which is bound to culminate in a final order which has been passed in the case in hand by the competent authority and it does not warrant interference. He also submitted that petitioner’s husband was guilty of a serious misconduct of selling Nigam’s house allotted to him and hence Nigam has no option but to pass the impugned orders. 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. 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. All the punishments contemplated under the rules are such which can be imposed on a person who is still continuing to be an employee. Sri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Nagar Nigam, on repeated query did not controvert the fact that as soon as an employee dies, his relationship of employer and employee comes to an end. This would automatically result in cessation of proceedings including departmental proceedings pending against him. Moreover, what penalty can be imposed on an employee of Nagar Nigam is provided in Rule 27 of U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Sewa Niyamawali, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “1962 Rules”) which reads as under: “27. Punishment.—Subject to the provisions of section 110 of the Act the following penalties may for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided be imposed upon the servants of the Mahapalika by the authority which is competent to make such appointments under section 107 of the Act, notwithstanding that such an appointment in any particular case may have been made under section 577 (f) (2) of the Act, namely- (I) fine in case of servants belonging to the inferior service only: Provided that the total amount of fine shall not ordinarily exceed half month’s pay of the servant concerned and it shall be deducted from his pay in instalments not exceeding one quarter of his monthly salary; (ii) censure; (iii) withholding of increments including its stoppage at an efficiency bar; (iv) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Mahapalika by negligence or breach of orders; (v) Suspension, (vi) reduction to a lower post or time-scale, or to lower stage in a time-scale, (vii) removal from the service of the Mahapalika which does not disqualify from future employment, (viii) dismissal from the service of the Mahapalika which ordinarily disqualifies from future employment. Explanation.—The discharge- (a) of a person appointed on probation, during or at the end of the period of probation; or (b) of a person appointed otherwise than under contract to hold a temporary appointment on the expiration of the period of the appointment or at any time in accordance with the terms of appointment ; or (c) of a person engaged under contract in accordance with the terms of his contract; does not amount to removal or dismissal within the meaning of this rule.” 7. The punishment provided in Rule 27, therefore, can be imposed upon the “servant” of Mahapalika and not on the family members of the “servants” of Mahapalika. As soon as an incumbent who was an employee of Nagar Mahapalika dies, for the purpose Rule 27 of 1962 Rules, he ceases to be a “servant of Nagar Mahapalika” as a result whereof no penalty under Rule 27 could be imposed upon him. That being so, the question of passing an order, which may have the effect of punishing legal heirs of the deceased employee would not arise. No such power has been conferred upon any authority of Nagar Nigam, Bareilly or else to pass any such order. Moreover, punishments which have been imposed, i.e. withholding of all retiral benefits including provided fund and non consideration of legal heir for compassionate appointment are also not provided as a punishment under Rule 27. It is well settled that a punishment not prescribed under the rules, as a result of disciplinary proceedings, cannot be awarded even to the employee what to say of others. 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 respondents who are responsible in establishment matters. 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 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. 8. This writ petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed. Besides, in my view, here is a fit case where an exemplary cost ought to be imposed against Nagar Nigam, Bareilly for such a mindless illegal act on their part. Sri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel for the Corporation, however, very fairly said that authorities may have committed a serious error in passing orders despite death of the employee concerned, but had no mala fide on their part, therefore, this Court may show its leniency in the matter of imposing heavy cost. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances as discussed above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 8.11.2005 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) and 26.3.2007 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. The respondents shall pay forthwith all dues to the legal heirs of the deceased employee Ghasi Ram as a result of his death on 31.7.2005/1.8.2005 treating the disciplinary proceeding against him having abated on that date. The amount payable, as above, shall be determined within one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the competent authority and shall be paid within 15 days thereafter. The respondent-Nagar Nigam shall also pay interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 10% p.a. commencing from the date of death of petitioner’s husband till actual payment. 10. If the petitioner or any other legal heir apply for compassionate appointment in accordance with law, the same may also be accordingly considered as per the rules. 11. The petitioner shall also be entitled to cost which is quantified to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). —————