Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 83 (MP)

Haralal Sharma v. State of M. P.

2017-01-16

SUBODH ABHYANKAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Subodh Abhyankar, J. 1. The question before this Court in the present petition is whether after the death of an employee against whom departmental enquiry/charge-sheet is already pending, recovery can still be sought against the legal representatives or not. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner Hiralal Sharma passed away on 22.7.2014, during the pendency of this petition. His wife Smt. Mamta Vishwakarma has come on record being legal representative of Hiralal Sharma and now she is pursuing the petition in place of her husband. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that the original petitioner Hiralal Sharma had filed the present petition against the recovery orders dated 31.3.2010, 6.5.2010 and 6.8.2010 to the tune of Rs.1,13,706/- passed by the Conservator of Forest, Dhindori and the Chief Conservator of Forest respectively. The petitioner has also challenged the charge-sheet issued to him in this behalf. 3. In return, the State has refuted the contentions made in the writ petition and has prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It is an admitted fact that the original petitioner against whom departmental enquiry was pending has died on 22.7.2014 and as such, departmental enquiry pending against him has abated. Now, the only question remains as to whether the recovery which was sought to be made against the original petitioner can still be made against the legal representatives of the original petitioner or not. In this regard Rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules is relevant and reads as under:— "F.R. 54-B— (1)..... (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 53, where a Government servant under suspension dies before the disciplinary or Court proceedings instituted against him are concluded, the period between the date of suspension and the date of death shall be treated as duty for all purposes and his family shall be paid the full pay and allowances for that period to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended, subject to adjustment in respect of subsistence allowance already paid." Thus, same analogy can be applied in the present case also where the employee has passed away while the recovery proceedings and charge-sheet were pending. 6. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision of this Court passed in Hardeep Kaur v. Mahakaushal Kshetriya Gramin Bank, 2013(4) M.P.L.J. 125 . wherein this Court while relying upon various earlier judgments, in para 6 observed :— "6. As soon as an employee dies, the relationship of employer and employee comes to an end. The purpose of departmental enquiry is to impose the penalty if the misconduct is established against the delinquent employee. This can only be done if the delinquent employee is alive. In view of the misconduct committed by the delinquent employee, penalty like dismissal, removal or other penalty prescribed in the regulations has to be imposed on the delinquent employee. Thus, the proceedings in the departmental inquiry are personal in relation to the contract of service and the same would terminate on the death of delinquent employee. On death of the delinquent employee, the departmental proceeding would automatically terminate and abate. Admittedly, after the death of the husband of the petitioner, the impugned order imposing the penalty in the departmental proceeding was passed which cannot be sustained in the eye of law." 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents was unable to demonstrate that under which provisions of law or the Service Rules, recovery can still be made against the legal representatives of the deceased employee against whom recovery was sought and the charge-sheet was still pending. 8. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the entire proceeding pending against the petitioner is liable to be quashed as abated. Hence the petition is allowed and consequently, recovery made vide Annexure P-2 dated 31.3.2010, Annexure P-3 dated 31.3.2010 and Annexure P-4 dated 6.5.2010 as well as the charge-sheet Annexure P-7 dated 6.8.2010 are quashed. 9. No order as to cost. C.C. as per rules.