JUDGMENT : PRATAP KRISHNA LOHRA, J. 1. Petitioner, Ms. Aruna Jain w/o. Late Shri Paras Kumar Jain, who was working as Gram Sevak-cum-Officiating Secretary under Zila Parishad, Udaipur, has preferred this writ petition to challenge order dt. 22nd of August, 2016 (Annex. 2), whereby Vikas Adhikari, Rishabhdev granted approval for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,75,000/- from her Late husband Shri Paras Kumar Jain. 2. It is, inter-alia, pleaded in the writ petition that, Paras Kumar Jain, husband of petitioner, died in harness on 2nd of March, 2016 and the impugned order was issued posterior to his death. The petitioner, for claiming the relief aforesaid has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Har Govind Singh & Ors. vs. State & Ors. with 215 other connected petitions. A Coordinate Bench, while invoking Section 111 of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'Act of 1994') in those matters, found the demands created against incumbents laconic, and therefore quashed the same. Operative part of the order reads as under:- "In the result, the writ petitions succeed, the same are hereby allowed. The impugned demands created against the petitioners by the respondents are quashed. The matter shall stand remanded to the competent authority to pass an appropriate order afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in accordance with law. The amount already deposited by the petitioners against the demands created, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court or otherwise, shall be subject to final outcome of the inquiry to be conducted by the competent authority. If the petitioners are held liable for the loss, if any, caused to the Panchayati Raj Institution, the amount already deposited by them, shall be adjusted against the demand created, if any. Needless to say that if the petitioners are exonerated, the amount, if any, deposited by them or where the demand created against them is found to be less than the amount already deposited by them, the excess amount, shall be refunded to them. No order as to costs." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, submitted that the lis involved in present petition is squarely covered by the decision in Har Govind (supra). Alternatively, it is argued by learned counsel that the impugned order itself was served after death of petitioner's husband and therefore same is not enforceable against her. No order as to costs." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, submitted that the lis involved in present petition is squarely covered by the decision in Har Govind (supra). Alternatively, it is argued by learned counsel that the impugned order itself was served after death of petitioner's husband and therefore same is not enforceable against her. Learned counsel would contend that during lifetime of her husband, he was never subjected to any disciplinary proceedings and as such impugned order is not sustainable. 4. Per contra, Mr. Patel has argued that a bare reading of Section 111 of the Act of 1994 makes it abundantly clear that provisions of said Section are not attracted in cases of employees of Panchayati Raj Institutions and can only be pressed into service vis-a-vis liability of Members as well as Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Panchayati Raj Institutions. Mr. Patel has further submitted that if an employee of Panchayati Raj Institution is found guilty of any misconduct, then he can be subjected to disciplinary action under Chapter XIII of the Rules of 1996. Learned Addl. Govt. Counsel has also argued that it was a case of causing loss to the Panchayati Raj Institution, and therefore', impugned order of recovery was issued against the petitioner's husband after serving a show cause notice. Mr. Patel would contend that requisite material is available to show illegal purchase of solar street lights and involvement of petitioner's husband in such dealings. 5. I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar. 6. There remains no quarrel that an employee of Panchayati Raj Institution can be subjected to disciplinary action if he has committed any misdemeanor in discharge of his duties and Chapter XIII under Rule 1996 also envisages that incumbent employee can be subjected to disciplinary inquiry as per Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal), 1958 (for short, 'Rules of 1958'). Rule 14(iii) of the Rules of 1958 also provides for punishment of recovery from pay of the incumbent whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government by negligence or breach of any law, rule or order. 7. Rule 14(iii) of the Rules of 1958 also provides for punishment of recovery from pay of the incumbent whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government by negligence or breach of any law, rule or order. 7. While refraining to make any comment on the true interpretation of Section; 111 of the Act of 1994, suffice it to observe that undeniably when the husband' was in service he was not subjected to any disciplinary inquiry inasmuch as neither any charge-sheet was served on him nor any proceedings were undertaken in this behalf. It is also noteworthy that even the impugned order was passed posterior to his death though notice was given to him when he was alive. 8. Be that as it may, there was no cogent finding against the husband of petitioner in any enquiry much less disciplinary enquiry that he caused pecuniary loss to the Panchayati Raj Institution by negligence or breach of any law. Moreover, the order impugned itself was passed posterior to his death which obviously cannot deprive the petitioner from claiming the retiral benefits admissible to her Late husband and the other statutory benefits for which she is entitled. Withholding of retiral benefits without there being proper enquiry and indictment of an employee for serious misconduct, therefore, in my view cannot be sustained. That apart, the impugned order in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case lacks legal foothold and therefore per se vulnerable. 9. The upshot above discussion is that the instant petition is allowed. Impugned order dt. 22.08.2016 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to release retiral benefits to the petitioner which were accrued to her husband, Late Shri Paras Kumar Jain besides other statutory benefits available to the petitioner.