Arti Sinha vs The State of Jharkhand

S. Chandrashekhar, J.—Aggrieved by the final order dated 24.5.2012, the wife of the deceased employee has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. The following penalties have been imposed on the deceased employee:--

"1. Non-submission of Accounts of Rs. 18,66,866/-, the amount provided under the head of Forest Development Project Scheme.

Misuse and misappropriation of Government amount to the tune of Rs. 18,66,866/-.

Disobedience of order of high officials.

Negligence and dereliction towards Government works.

Discharge of Government work according to his wish."

Heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.

A charge was framed on 29.3.2012 and it was served upon the husband of the petitioner on 4.4.2012. The husband of the petitioner died-in-harness on 10.4.2012 and the penalty order was passed on 24.5.2012.

A counter-affidavit has been filed taking a plea that since an amount of Rs. 18,66,866/- remained unadjusted, the order for recovery of the said amount under the Public Demand Recovery Act has been passed.

Mr. Sujit Narayan Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that after the death of the employee, the final order dated 24.5.2012 could not have been passed. The learned counsel has further submitted that besides inflicting punishment of "censor" and withholding of promotion, the order for recovery of amount of Rs. 18,66,866/- has been passed, which cannot be effected due to death of the employee.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and submitted that during the lifetime of the deceased employee several notices were issued however, the deceased employee did not respond and did not submit adjustment for the advance taken by him and therefore, the penalty order dated 24.5.2012 has been passed.

A perusal of the penalty order dated 24.5.2012 would indicate that, it has been noticed by the disciplinary authority that the employee died on 10.4.2012. Admittedly, no enquiry was conducted in the matter. In the charge, there is an allegation of misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 18,66,866/-. It further appears from the penalty order dated 24.5.2012 that the charge of irregularity and negligence have been said to be proved on the face of the record. I am of the opinion that the allegation in the Charge Memo remains in the realm of allegations only and it cannot be taken as proof of the charges framed against the delinquent employee.

Admittedly, since the husband of the petitioner died on 10.4.2012, he had no opportunity to put his defence before the departmental authorities. In view of the charges framed against the deceased employee and the allegations of misappropriation of Government money, I am of the view that the penalty order dated 24.5.2012 could not have been passed against the husband of the petitioner after his death. Accordingly, the penalty order dated 24.5.2012 is quashed. This writ petition is allowed and consequently, the petitioner would be entitled to all the benefits, if admissible to her, in laws.