ORDER : (Neeraj Tiwari, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Sri Vinayak Ranjan, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. The case was heard on 17.11.2022 and the Court has passed the following order: "Shri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks and no more time to file counter affidavit. List this matter on 15.12.2022. Interim order, if any, is extended till the next date of listing." 3. Despite order dated 17.11.2022, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 who has passed the impugned order dated 27.05.2022. 4. In such view of the matter, the Court proceeded to decide the case on merits. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that husband of petitioner was working on the post of Jr. Engineer. During his posting at Shamli, a charge sheet dated 23.02.2021 was served upon him, but before submission of reply to the charge sheet, he died on 02.05.2021 due to heart failure (the date of death of husband of petitioner has been wrongly transcribed as 02.05.2022 in the order of this Court dated 21.09.2022). 6. Ultimately, the inquiry committee came to the conclusion that as the husband of petitioner died during the pendency of the inquiry proceedings, therefore, it is required on the part of respondent authorities to drop the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. Relevant paragraph of the same is being quoted hereinbelow- ^^tkap lfefr dk er gS fd vkjksih lsok LoŒ xqjn;ky flag] rRdkyhu voj vfHk;Urk vUrxZr fo|qr forj.k [k.M&r`rh;] 'kkeyh lEizfr voj vfHk;Urk vUrxZr fo|qr forj.k [k.M&f}rh;] 'kkeyh ¼fnoaxr½ fd fo:) vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh ds yfEcr jgrs gq, fnukad 02-05-2021 dks LoxZokl gks tkus ds QyLo:i 'kkldh; QkŒ laŒ 1301@ch&2@2003&24 fnukad 26-05-03 ds vkyksd esa vkjksfir lsod dks mDr izdj.k esa fdlh Hkh izdkj n.M nsuk lEHko u gksus ds n`f"Vxr vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh lekIr djuk fof/kd n`f"V ls mfpr gksxkA^^ 7. After death of the husband of petitioner, no terminal dues were paid to her, therefore, she has preferred Writ Petition No. A16683 of 2021, which was disposed of on 07.12.2021 with direction to respondent to take decision upon the representation of the petitioner dated 21.12.2021. Pursuant to that, representation of the petitioner was decided and vide impugned order dated 27.05.2022 Rs. Pursuant to that, representation of the petitioner was decided and vide impugned order dated 27.05.2022 Rs. 10,14,594/-was deducted from the retiral dues of late husband of the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order impugned is absolutely bad. He further submitted that it is undisputed that without submitting the reply to the charge sheet dated 23.02.2021, husband of petitioner died and considering this fact, inquiry committee also opined that disciplinary proceeding should have been dropped against the petitioner, but ignoring the recommendation of the inquiry committee, Rs. 10,14,594/-has been deducted from the terminal dues of husband of petitioner as punishment. He firmly submitted that in light of settled provision of law, no disciplinary proceeding can be continued against a dead person and, accordingly no punishment can be awarded by the way of deduction of any amount. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention, placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Smt. Rajeshwari Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 2011(2) ADJ 643 decided on 07.01.2011, Gulam Gausul Azam and others Vs. State of U.P. and others 2014 (5) ADJ 558 decided on 12.05.2014, Onkar Singh Verma Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Ors. 2018 (3) ADJ 272 , decided on 09.01.2018, Writ A No. 40057 of 2013 Durgawati Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors., decided on 08.10.2018, Writ A No. 47122 of 2016: Rajkishori Devi Widow(deceased) Vs. State of U.P. And 4 Ors, decided on 30.07.2019, judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Hirabhai Bhikanrao Deshmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (1985) ILLJ 469 Bom decided on 10.10.1984, judgment of Jharkhand High Court in the case of Jayanti Devi Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. 2001(49) BLJR 2179 decided on 01.05.2001 and judgment of Apex Court in A.K.S. Rathore (Dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Union of India & Anr., decided on 28.09.2022. 10. In view of the judgment so relied upon, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in these judgments, the Courts have considered this issue and came to the conclusion that against a dead person, neither disciplinary proceeding can be initiated, nor any punishment order can be passed. 11. Sri Vinayak Ranjan, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 could not dispute the factual and legal submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. 11. Sri Vinayak Ranjan, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 could not dispute the factual and legal submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. It is undisputed that husband of the petitioner died on 02.05.2021 before submitting the reply of the charge sheet dated 23.02.2021. It is also undisputed that impugned recovery order dated 27.05.2022 has been passed after the death of husband of the petitioner upon the representation of petitioner dated 21.12.2021. 14. Facts of the case are not disputed, therefore, on facts, no finding of this Court is required. 15. So far as legal provisions are concerned, this issue came up before this Court in the case of Smt. Rajeshwari Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 2011(2) ADJ 643 decided on 07.01.2011, the Court has held that as soon so as a person dies, he breaks all his connection with the worldly affairs, therefore, no disciplinary proceeding can be initiated against him. Relevant Paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 of the judgment are being quoted below:- “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. 7. 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. 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. 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.” 16. Again this issue came before this Court in the matter of Gulam Gausul Azam and others Vs. State of U.P. and others 2014 (5) ADJ 558 decided on 12.05.2014, the Court has held held that before disciplinary authority could pass any order on the inquiry report, petitioner died ending the master and servant relationship, therefore, no punishment order can be passed. Relevant paragraph Nos. 10 to 13 of the judgment are being quoted below:- “10. There is another aspect of the matter. In the present case Abdul Kareem expired on 15.7.2011, i.e. before the disciplinary authority could pass any order on the enquiry report dated 3.7.2011. In the circumstances therefore, the master and servant relationship between Late Abdul Kareem and the respondents also came to an end with his death and therefore, the impugned order dated 21.11.2011 could not have been passed after the death of Abdul Kareem. 11. In my opinion therefore the disciplinary authority could not have passed the order dated 21.11.2011 withholding the retiral dues and other benefits of late Abdul Kareem. When Abdul Kareem died on 15.7.2011 he could not have been said to be a government servant thereafter and therefore the order dated 21.11.2011 on the face of it is a wholly illegal and arbitrary order and has no basis in law and cannot survive. 12. So far as the matter of compassionate appointment of the petitioner no. When Abdul Kareem died on 15.7.2011 he could not have been said to be a government servant thereafter and therefore the order dated 21.11.2011 on the face of it is a wholly illegal and arbitrary order and has no basis in law and cannot survive. 12. So far as the matter of compassionate appointment of the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, for the same reasons that since the disciplinary authority has not taken any decision regarding the finding of guilt against late Abdul Kareem prior to his death, it could not be said that the charge had been established against late Abdul Kareem as disciplinary proceedings are concluded only with the passing of the order of disciplinary authority and not when the enquiry officer submits his report. 13. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and both the impugned orders dated 21.11.2011 and 1.3.2012 are quashed. The respondents are directed to take steps for payment of all retiral benefits to the legal heirs of late Abdul Kareem. So far as the order dated 1.3.2012 regarding rejection of the claim of petitioner no .1 for compassionate appointment is concerned, a direction is issued to the District Magistrate, Deoria-respondent no. 3 to take a decision afresh in this regard having regard to the educational qualification of the petitioner no. 1 and availability of vacancy within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received in his office.” 17. In the matter of Onkar Singh Verma Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Ors. 2018 (3) ADJ 272 , decided on 09.01.2018, the court has again considered this issue and the relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted below:- “Finally, the petitioner has died on 14.03.2017, during the pendency of this writ petition and therefore, even if, there had been any power in the rules vested in respondent no.2 to conduct enquiry against the petitioner after superannuation, now it would not have been possible for him to conduct any enquiry. Therefore, the impugned order dated 21.09.2016, passed by respondent no.2, Secretary/General Manager, District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Etah, whereby, recovery of certain amounts have been directed against the petitioner from his gratuity, after his retirement from service is hereby quashed. Therefore, the impugned order dated 21.09.2016, passed by respondent no.2, Secretary/General Manager, District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Etah, whereby, recovery of certain amounts have been directed against the petitioner from his gratuity, after his retirement from service is hereby quashed. The respondent no.2 is directed to release the amount of gratuity of the petitioner, by applying new pay scale, along with 7% simple interest for inordinate delay in making payment of the same to the petitioner from the date of his superannuation on 30.06.2013. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.” 18. In the aforesaid matter, the petitioner died on 14.03.2017 during the pendency of writ petition, therefore, the Court has held that even there had been any power in the rules vested to respondent No. 2 to conduct the inquiry after superannuation, now it would not have been possible for him to conduct inquiry and quashed the order impugned with direction to release the amount of gratuity. 19. Similar matter was also for consideration before the Bombay High Court in the case of Hirabhai Bhikanrao Deshmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (1985) ILLJ 469 Bom decided on 10.10.1984, the Court has clearly held that provision with regard to dismissal, removal and suspension of the civil servant do not permit holding of any further enquiry into the conduct of such a civil servant after his death. Relevant Paragraph No. 6 of the judgment is being quoted below:- “6. The provisions with regard to dismissal, removal and suspension of the civil servant do not permit holding of any further enquiry into the conduct of such a civil servant after his death. Such proceedings are intended to impose departmental penalty and would abate by reason of the death of civil servant. The purpose of proceedings is to impose penalty, if misconduct is established against the civil servant. That can only be achieved if the civil servant continues to be in service. Upon broader view the proceedings are quasi-criminal in the sense it can result in fault finding and further imposition of penalty. The character of such proceedings has to be treated as quasi- judicial for this purpose. In the light of the character of the proceedings and the nature of penalty like dismissal or removal, or any other penalties, minor or major, it has nexus to the contract of service. The character of such proceedings has to be treated as quasi- judicial for this purpose. In the light of the character of the proceedings and the nature of penalty like dismissal or removal, or any other penalties, minor or major, it has nexus to the contract of service. Therefore, if the person who has undertaken that contract is not available, it should follow that no proceedings can continue. Thus when the proceedings are quite personal in relation to such a contract of service, the same should terminate upon death of the delinquent. By reason of death, such proceedings would terminate and abate. We think that such a result is also inferable from the provisions of Rule 152-B of the Bombay Civil Services Rules.” 20. Similar dispute has also come before the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Jayanti Devi Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. 2001(49) BLJR 2179 decided on 01.05.2001, the Court after following the decision of Bombay High Court had taken the same view and directed the respondents to pay all post retiral benefits to the widow. Relevant Paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of the judgment are being quoted below:- “9. In the instant case admittedly the delinquent-employee died on 24.3.1999 and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 30.8.1999. In the enquiry report (Annexure F) the Enquiry Officer took notice of the fact that the delinquent-employee died on 24.3.1999. The Enquiry Officer further took notice of the fact that the delinquent-employee had requested the respondents to keep the departmental proceeding in abeyance till the disposal of the case pending before him. However, the Enquiry Officer after the death of delinquent employee called upon the respondents and on the basis of documents produced by them submitted enquiry report and on the basis of that report a formal order of dismissal was passed. In my opinion therefore the manner in which respondents proceeded with the departmental proceeding against the delinquent-employee, the enquiry report as well as the order of dismissal is vitiated in law and is null and void. In my opinion therefore the manner in which respondents proceeded with the departmental proceeding against the delinquent-employee, the enquiry report as well as the order of dismissal is vitiated in law and is null and void. I am, further of the view that the widow of the deceased employee cannot be deprived of her legitimate claim of death-cum-retirement benefits on the ground of dismissal of the employee on the basis of departmental proceeding initiated after 6 years of the order of suspension and that to on the basis of enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer after proceeding ex parte against the deceased- employee who died much before the date when the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the matter and submitted his report. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ application is allowed and the respondents are directed to release all the death-cum-retirement dues in favour of the petitioner, who is widow of the deceased employee as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.” 21. In the matter of Durgawati Dubey(Supra), decided on 08.10.2018, same issue was considered, and the Court has held as under: “After going through the judgments and facts of the case, this Court is of the view that against a dead person, neither disciplinary proceeding can be initiated nor any punishment order can be passed. In the present case, facts are not disputed that disciplinary proceeding was initiated against husband of petitioner after his death, which suffers from non application of mind as well as contrary to the law laid down by this Court as well as other High Courts, therefore, the impugned order dated 10.06.2013 is not sustainable and is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.” 22. The Court has taken a very clear cut view that neither disciplinary proceeding can be initiated, nor any punishment order can be passed against a dead person. 23. This Court vide judgment and order dated 30.07.2019 in Writ A No. 47122 of 2016: Rajkishori Devi Widow(deceased) Vs. State of U.P. And 4 Ors. has again decided the same issue and held as under: “It follows that punishment provided under the Disciplinary Rules can be imposed upon the government servant and not on the family member of the government servant. State of U.P. And 4 Ors. has again decided the same issue and held as under: “It follows that punishment provided under the Disciplinary Rules can be imposed upon the government servant and not on the family member of the government servant. As soon as an incumbent ceases to be a government servant upon death, no penalty under the rules could have been 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. In the facts of the instant case, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the employee immediately before his retirement and before the disciplinary enquiry could conclude he died. The disciplinary enquiry, thereafter, could not have been proceeded under Section 351A of the Civil Service Regulations, accordingly, the competent authority dropped the enquiry. By the impugned order, recovery was sought to be made from the post retiral dues from the legal heir for the misdemeanour and misconduct of the delinquent employee, which was not permissible in view of Rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules. Learned standing counsel, in rebuttal, does not dispute the fact that the enquiry was dropped as the employee died and the enquiry could not be concluded before death of the employee. In the circumstances, no recovery could have been made from the post retiral dues without a finding being recorded against the deceased/employee under the Rules that he was responsible for having caused loss to the government. The order dated 17 June 2016 passed by the second respondent-Finance Controller and Chief Accounts Officer, Foods and Civil Supplies, Lucknow, is unsustainable, accordingly, set aside and quashed. The recovered sum of the post retiral dues shall be released to the petitioner by the second respondent--Finance Controller and Chief Accounts Officer, Foods and Civil Supplies, Lucknow, within two months from the date of filing of certified copy of this order along with interest @ 7% per annum on the sum from the date of recovery. The writ petition stands allowed. No Cost.” 24. Recently, the Apex Court by its order dated 28.09.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7028 of 2022: A.K.S. Rathore (Dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Union of India & Anr. Has considered this issue and has held as under: “8. The writ petition stands allowed. No Cost.” 24. Recently, the Apex Court by its order dated 28.09.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7028 of 2022: A.K.S. Rathore (Dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Union of India & Anr. Has considered this issue and has held as under: “8. Today even if we dismiss the above appeal, no final order can be passed in the disciplinary proceedings, against a dead person. The disciplinary proceedings have actually abated. In other words the dismissal of the above appeal will have the same consequences as the appeal being allowed. 9. In view of the above, the above appeal is disposed of holding that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the original appellant stand abated. As a consequence, the legal representatives of the original appellant will be entitled to all the benefits that the original appellant would have been entitled to, as per the rules. The respondents may pass orders in accordance with the rules, about the benefits lawfully admissible to the original appellant and disburse the same within a period of 12 weeks. There will be no order as to costs.” 25. The Apex Court is of the firm view that no disciplinary proceeding can be initiated or continued against a dead person. 26. So far as, present case is concerned, inquiry proceeding was initiated, charge sheet was issued, but before submission of reply of the charge sheet, husband of petitioner died. Inquiry officer came to the conclusion that, as husband of petitioner (employee) died during the pendency of inquiry proceeding, therefore, it is required on the part of of disciplinary authority to drop the disciplinary proceeding. Thereafter, no further order has been passed upon the inquiry proceeding. Only after filing of writ petition by the petitioner, order was passed to decide the representation of petitioner dated 21.12.2021, upon which order of recovery dated 27.05.2022 has been passed for recovery of amount of Rs. 10,14,594/-. In fact, it is nothing, but re-initiation of earlier inquiry, which has not been completed in light of recommendation made by the inquiry committee. 27. Law is very well settled that, in case inquiry has not been completed and delinquent employee dies during the pendency of the inquiry, the same shall not continued and completed. 10,14,594/-. In fact, it is nothing, but re-initiation of earlier inquiry, which has not been completed in light of recommendation made by the inquiry committee. 27. Law is very well settled that, in case inquiry has not been completed and delinquent employee dies during the pendency of the inquiry, the same shall not continued and completed. It is very surprising that, here, respondents are well aware of the fact that before submission of reply of charge sheet, husband of petitioner died and they have not proceeded to complete the inquiry. It is only after receiving the representation dated 21.12.2021 of petitioner in compliance of order of this Court dated 07.12.2021 passed in Writ A No. 16683 of 2021, respondent has passed impugned order dated 27.05.2022, which amounts to re-initiation of departmental proceeding. 28. Under such circumstances, passing of impugned order shows that respondents are fully unaware with the service law. Therefore, this Court depreciate and condemns the act of respondents and a warning is also issued to them to be conscious in future while dealing with such matters. 29. Under such facts of the case, impugned order dated 27.05.2022 is contrary to the settled provisions of law, therefore, writ petition is allowed and impugned order dated 27.05.2022 is hereby quashed. 30. Respondent No. 2 is directed to pay the deducted amount of Rs. 10,14,594/-forthwith to the petitioner within two months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order, alongwith interest as @ 6 % from due date to the date of actual payment.