JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against issuance of charge sheet dated 27.2.2024, whereby a departmental inquiry has been initiated against the petitioner on the allegations that he did not appear before the High Court and did not file the return/reply in WP No.28001/2019 which was disposed of ex-parte against the State on 7.1.2020, directing that the family pension be given to the writ petitioner. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that one Smt. Mukti Mishra filed the aforesaid writ petition No.28001/2019, being wife of late Shri Arun Mishra, claiming family pension. In the aforesaid petition, this Court passed the final order on 7.1.2020 disposing of the petition with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with the judgment relied upon by her, and the respondents were directed to decide the same in accordance with law within a period of three months. Subsequently, the representation filed by the said writ petitioner Smt. Mukti Mishra was allowed and it was sent for confirmation to the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, who also wrote a letter dated 25.11.2020 to the State Government, informing that the appropriate orders be passed to ensure that the family pension is given to the petitioner Smt. Mukti Mishra. 3. After attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner also retired on 31.12.2021. However, petitioner was issued the charge sheet on 27.2.2024 alleging the dereliction of his duties, that an ex-parte order was passed against the State directing the respondents to pay the family pension. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 7.1.2020 passed by this Court in WP No.28001/2019, to submit that it was not an ex-parte order, and in-fact it was an order whereby the petition was simply disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit a representation which was to be decided by the respondents in accordance with law. It is submitted that there was no occasion for the respondents to frame a charge that it was because of the petitioner's dereliction of duties, that the aforesaid order was passed by the High Court. It is submitted that there was no occasion for the respondents to frame a charge that it was because of the petitioner's dereliction of duties, that the aforesaid order was passed by the High Court. It is also submitted that since an order has already been passed by the State authorities that the said petitioner Smt. Mukti Mishra is entitle to family pension, and that has also not been challenged by the State before any other authority, it cannot be said that any loss has occasioned to the State. Thus, it is submitted that even on a bare perusal of the charges, the same cannot be countenanced in the eyes of law. Hence, it is submitted that the petition be allowed. 5. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand has opposed the prayer. A reply has also been filed by the respondents and it is submitted that the petition itself is not maintainable as the petitioner will have ample opportunities to contest the matter on merits after leading the evidence. Thus, it is submitted that no case for interference is made out. 6. Heard. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the documents filed on record, this Court finds that the controversy revolves around the order dated 7.1.2020, passed by this Court in WP No.28001/2019. Thus, it would be apt to refer to the same at this juncture, the relevant excerpts of the same are as under:- “By the instant petition the petitioner is challenging the order dated 14.10.2011 (Annexure P-1) whereby her claim for grant of family pension has been rejected by the authorities stating that the deceased employee has not completed 10 years of qualifying service and, accordingly, the family pension cannot be granted. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed certain judgments in which it is observed that for grant of family pension even a day's service is sufficient. The learned Govt. Advocate submits that if this petition is disposed of by directing the authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh taking note of the judgments passed by the High Court on earlier occasion, he would have no objection. Considering the above, the order dated 14.10.2011 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2 for considering the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension. Considering the above, the order dated 14.10.2011 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2 for considering the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension. The petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation alongwith the judgments of this Court on which she is relying upon before the authorities. The authorities, while considering the claim of the petitioner, shall take note of the orders passed by this Court in respect of qualifying service and pass fresh orders regarding grant of family pension to the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of submitting the fresh representation along with the certified copy of this order by the petitioner. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. It is also found that the matter came up for hearing before this Court for the first time on 7.1.2020 itself, and on a bare perusal of the aforesaid order it would reveal that this Court has not directed the State to grant family pension to the petitioner Smt. Mukti Mishra, and what was directed was to decide the petitioner's representation also taking note of the judgments passed by this Court and relied upon by the petitioner Smt. Mishra. Admittedly, the representation has been allowed by the competent authority on 3.9.2020, and it has been sent to the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, who in turn has sent this communication to the State Government on 25/11/2020. 8. In such facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is totally at a loss to understand as to how and in what circumstances, a departmental inquiry can be initiated against the petitioner who was neither present in the Court, nor was responsible in any manner for the outcome of the said petition. 8. In such facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is totally at a loss to understand as to how and in what circumstances, a departmental inquiry can be initiated against the petitioner who was neither present in the Court, nor was responsible in any manner for the outcome of the said petition. It appears that the authority which has framed the charges has either misread the order passed by this Court or misinterpreted it, and has proceeded to initiate departmental inquiry against the petitioner, in which following charges have been framed:- ^^vkj¨i Øekad&1 vki ij vkj¨fir gS fd [k.Mok laÒkx esa vkidh inLFkkiuk d¢ n©jku okgu pkyd LoŒ Jh v#.k dqekj feJk dh iRuh Jherh eqfä feJk }kjk ifjokj isa'ku çkIr djus gsrq ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [kaMihB] tcyiqj esa MCY;w-ih- Øekad 28001@2019 nk;j dh xÃ] ftlesa ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk laÒkxh; mik;qä] okf.kfT;d dj] [k.Mok d¨ Òh çfroknh cuk;k x;k FkkA vkid¢ }kjk ;kfpdk d¢ lacaèk esa eq[;ky; d¨ lwpuk çnku ugÈ dh tkus ls 'kklu dh v¨j ls ;kfpdk esa d¨Ã çÒkjh vfèkdkjh fu;qä ugÈ g¨ ldkA vkid¢ }kjk ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr g¨dj tokcnkok Òh çLrqr ugÈ fd;k x;kA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa 'kklu dh v¨j ls foÒkx dk i{k çLrqr ugÈ fd, tkus ls ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ,di{kh; vkns'k fnukad 7-1-2020 ikfjr fd;k tkdj ifjokj isa'ku fn, tkus d¢ funsZ'k fn, x, gSaA bl çdkj vkid¢ }kjk ykijokgh dh tkuk ifjyf{kr gqà gSA vkj¨i Øekad&2 vki ij vkj¨fir gS fd vkidh inLFkkiuk d¢ n©jku MCY;w-ih- Øekad 2800@2019 esa ikfjr ,di{kh; vkns'k fnukad 7-1-2020 d¢ i'pkr~ vkid¢ }kjk mä vkns'k d¢ lacaèk esa 'kkldh; egkfèkoäk ls vfÒer çkIr dj vihy dh tkus dh dk;Zokgh fd, fcuk LoŒ Jh v#.k feJk dh iRuh Jherh eqfä feJk d¨ ifjokj isa'ku LohÑfr fd, fcuk LoŒ Jh v#.k feJk dh iRuh Jherh eqfä feJk d¨ ifjokj isa'ku LohÑfr vkns'k fnukad 7-1-2020 d¢ lacaèk eq[;ky; d¨ Òh voxr ugÈ djk;k x;kA bl çdkj vkid¢ }kjk U;k;ky;hu çdj.k d¨ xaÒhjrk ls u ysrs gq, Ĩj ykijokgh cjrh xà gS] ftlls jktLo dh {kfr laÒkfor gSA^^ 9. A perusal of the aforesaid charges would also reveal that they are bereft of any sense, are illogical and appear to have been framed without application of mind , which cannot be countenanced in the eyes of law, and hence, are liable to be and hereby quashed. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.