JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for State-respondents. 2. Present petition has been filed for quashing the impugned orders dated 04.11.2009, 05.11.2009, 14.10.2020 & 18.04.2011 and for payment of consequential dues. 3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, writ petition is being decided at the admission stage itself. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during pendency of writ petition, Raj Pal Singh (husband of petitioner) died and now petition is being contested by his wife after filing substitution application, which has been allowed. 5. He next submitted that husband of petitioner (Raj Pal Singh) was serving as Sub Inspector in Civil Police and after attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years, he was retired from service on 31.05.2009. While, he was posted at Ramabai Nagar, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him to award major punishment and also withholding the salary for the period of his absence from duty. Pursuant to that, a charge sheet dated 24.10.2008 was served upon husband of petitioner and he has submitted his reply dated 13.11.2008 denying all charges. Ultimately, Enquiry Officer has submitted enquiry report dated 06.03.2009 against the husband of petitioner with recommendation of punishment for withholding salary for the period of absence and further reversion to minimum pay scale for one year. 6. Pursuant to enquiry report dated 06.03.2009, two show cause notices dated 27.05.2009 has been issued to husband of petitioner by Disciplinary Authority, upon which, he has submitted reply dated 30.05.2009. Disciplinary Authority without considering the reply of husband of petitioner and without recording any finding upon that, has passed impugned orders dated 04.11.2066 & 05.11.2009 imposing the punishment proposed by Enquiry Officer. Against the impugned orders, husband of petitioner has preferred appeal before respondent no. 3, which was dismissed vide order dated 14.10.2010. After dismissal of appeal, husband of petitioner has preferred revision before respondent no. 2, which was also dismissed vide order dated 18.04.2011. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned orders are bad on two grounds. 8. First of all, Enquiry Officer has no business to propose the punishment and it is upon the Disciplinary Authority to take decision after considering the enquiry report and other material available on record. 2, which was also dismissed vide order dated 18.04.2011. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned orders are bad on two grounds. 8. First of all, Enquiry Officer has no business to propose the punishment and it is upon the Disciplinary Authority to take decision after considering the enquiry report and other material available on record. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Kharak Singh; 2008 (8) SCC 236 . 9. Secondly, impugned orders are having no reason and no consideration of reply of husband of petitioner dated 30.05.2009 of show cause notice dated 27.05.2009. For this, he has taken specific plea in paragraph 11 of the affidavit filed along with petition and in the counter affidavit, there is a very vague denial not supported with any document. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Surendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. (Writ A No. 23290 of 2017) decided on 24.05.2017. 10. He next submitted that after death of deceased employee (in present case, husband of petitioner), no further or fresh enquiry may be initiated. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the matters of Durgawati Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others (Writ A No. 40057 of 2013) decided on 8.10.2018, Raj Kishori Devi Widow (deceased) Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others (Writ A No. 47122 of 2016) decided on 30.7.2019 and judgment of Apex Court in the matter of A.K.S. Rathore (dead) through LRS Vs. Union of India & another in Civil Appeal No. 7028 of 2022 (arising out of SLP © No. 22570 of 2016 decided on 28.9.2022. 11. Sri Govind Narayan Srivastava, learned standing counsel vehemently opposed the submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, but could not dispute this fact that punishment so given is as proposed by the Enquiry Officer. He also could not dispute that impugned orders have been passed without considering the reply of petitioner dated 30.05.2009 having no finding upon that. 12. I have considered the rival submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. He also could not dispute that impugned orders have been passed without considering the reply of petitioner dated 30.05.2009 having no finding upon that. 12. I have considered the rival submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Last paragraph of the enquiry report dated 06.03.2009 provides proposed punishment i.e. withholding salary for the period of absence and further reversion to minimum pay scale for one year, which are awarded to the petitioner. Apex Court in the matter of Kharak Singh (supra) has considered this fact and opined that Enquiry Officer has no authority to make recommendation for punishment. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted below; “18. Another infirmity in the report of the enquiry officer is that he concluded the enquiry holding that all the charges have been proved and he recommended for dismissal of the delinquent from service. The last paragraph of his report dated 16-11-1985 reads as under: "During the course of above inquiry, such facts have come into light from which it is proved that the employee who has doubtful character and does not obey the order, does not have the right to continue in the government service and it is recommended to dismiss him from the service with immediate effect." (emphasis supplied) Though there is no specific bar in offering views by the enquiry officer, in the case on hand, the enquiry officer exceeded his limit by saying that the officer has no right to continue in the government service and he has to be dismissed from service with immediate effect. 19. As pointed out above, awarding appropriate punishment is the exclusive jurisdiction of the punishing/disciplinary authority and it depends upon the nature and gravity of the proved charge/charges and other attended circumstances. It is clear from the materials, the officer, who inspected and noted the shortfall of trees, himself conducted the enquiry, arrived at a conclusion holding the charges proved and also strongly recommended severe punishment of dismissal from service. The entire action and the course adopted by the enquiry officer cannot be accepted and is contrary to the well-known principles enunciated by this Court. 13. Apex Court has taken firm view that Enquiry Committee has no authority to recommend the punishment. 14. The entire action and the course adopted by the enquiry officer cannot be accepted and is contrary to the well-known principles enunciated by this Court. 13. Apex Court has taken firm view that Enquiry Committee has no authority to recommend the punishment. 14. From the perusal of show cause notice dated 27.05.2009 and reply submitted by the husband of petitioner dated 30.05.2009, it is apparently clear that reply so given by the petitioner has not been considered and straightway impugned orders have been passed with a one line observation that reply of petitioner is not satisfactory. No finding is recorded in support of that as to why reply is not satisfactory. This issue has also been decided by this Court in the matter of Surendra Singh (Supra). Relevant paragraphs are being quoted below; "By the impugned order, the petitioner has been found guilty and he has been awarded a censure entry in terms of Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rule, 1991. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal and it does not disclose any reason, hence, the order is liable to be set aside. He further submits that in response to the show cause notice, the petitioner has submitted detailed representation on 28.04.2016. The authority concerned without adverting to his reply has rejected it by single order that his reply was found "Asantoshjanak" (Unsatisfactory). He submits that no reason has been assigned in the matter, hence, the order is arbitrary. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is well settled law that an administrative/quasi judicial order must contain reason in support of the conclusion and in absence of the reason, the order become arbitrary. The Supreme Court in long line of decisions has settled the view that recording the reasons is an essential feature in administrative decision. Recording the reasons also checks the State functionaries to act fairly and restrain them from arbitrary exercise of their administrative or quasi judicial power. The reasons in support of decision must be cogent and clear, which can demonstrate that authority concerned has applied his mind. Reference may be made to the judgments of Supreme Court in the cases of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing Vs. Shukla and Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785 ; Kranti Associates Private Limited Vs. The reasons in support of decision must be cogent and clear, which can demonstrate that authority concerned has applied his mind. Reference may be made to the judgments of Supreme Court in the cases of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing Vs. Shukla and Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785 ; Kranti Associates Private Limited Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496; Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal Capoor, AIR 1974 SC 87 ; S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984 ; Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar, (2003) 11 SCC 519 ; Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs. Shukla and Brothers (2010) 4 SCC 785 . In view of the said settled law, I find that the impugned order which is cryptic and skeletal, needs to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. The matter is remitted to the authority concerned to pass fresh order in accordance with law, expeditiously. In view of the fact that from order itself, it is evident that no reason has been mention, no useful purpose would be served to grant time to learned Standing Counsel to file counter affidavit. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of." 15. Court is of the firm view that recording of reason is an essential feature in Administrative decisions. 16. Now, coming to the last submission as to whether a fresh enquiry can be conducted or not? It is undisputed that as on date, original petitioner, (husband of present petitioner before substitution), is no more. This matter was before this Court in the matter of Durgawati Dubey (Supra). Relevant paragraphs are quoted below; “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.” 17. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.” 17. Court is of the firm view that no disciplinary proceeding can be initiated against a dead person. This Court in the matter of Raj Kishori Devi Widow (supra) has again taken the similar view. Relevant paragraphs are being quoted below; "Learned Single Judge of this Court in Rajeshwari Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others, in the similar facts, held as follows: “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...... all the punishments contemplated under the rules are such which can be imposed on a person who is still continuing to be an employee." 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. 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.” 18. Recently, in the matter of A.K.S. Rathore (supra), Apex Court has taken a very clear view that no disciplinary proceeding can be initiated or continued against a dead person. Relevant paragraphs are being quoted below; “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 law-fully admissible to the original appellant and disburse the same within a period of 12 weeks. There will be no order as to costs.” 19. In the present case, Disciplinary Authority has given the same punishment, which was proposed by Enquiry Officer and further no finding has been recorded while passing the impugned orders, therefore, it is bad in law. 20. Under such facts and circumstances of the case as well as law discussed herein above, impugned orders dated 04.11.2009, 05.11.2009, 14.10.2020 & 18.04.2011 are bad and hereby quashed. 20. Under such facts and circumstances of the case as well as law discussed herein above, impugned orders dated 04.11.2009, 05.11.2009, 14.10.2020 & 18.04.2011 are bad and hereby quashed. Further, as on date, husband of petitioner (employee) is no more, therefore, matter cannot be remitted back to the respondents for passing fresh order and petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits permitted under the Rules. Accordingly, petition is allowed. No order as to cots. Respondents are directed to pay all consequential benefits arising out of quashing of impugned orders to the petitioner i.e. wife of Raj Pal Singh within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.