The legal principle established is that in the absence of departmental proceedings against the deceased, the family pension and retiral benefits cannot be withheld from the legal heirs.

Kuldip Singh, J.

1. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents despite second call and the notice being displayed on the display board of this Court. Therefore, I proceed to decide the petition on merit.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, considered the case of the respondents and have also carefully gone through the file.

3. Dr. Azad Vir Shanwal, late husband of the petitioner was working as a Professor in the Department of Soil Sciences in College of Agriculture, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar. He was stated to be suffering from some serious disease since the year 2002, for which he was getting medical claims. It comes out that an anonymous complaint was received against Dr. Azad Vir Shanwal regarding making fake claims on the basis of fake medical bills. On the basis of the said anonymous complaint, a fact finding inquiry was ordered. After thorough inquiry, a Committee consisting of Dr. R.P. Bansal, Director (Store and Purchase) and Sh. P.C. Marwal, Deputy Registrar (Academic and Faculty Affairs) came to the conclusion that Dr. Azad Vir Shanwal has produced fake medical bills and withdrawn public money amounting to Rs.74,04,766/-, fraudulently. Accordingly, it was recommended that a criminal case be registered against him under Sections 420, 218, 409 467 468, 470, 471, 472, 473 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, FIR No.642 dated 23.12.2008 under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against Dr. Azad Vir Shanwal at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar. However, Dr. Azad Vir Shanwal died next day of registration of FIR i.e. on 24.12.2008. After his death, petitioner made several representations dated 19.01.2009 (Annexure-P-3), 04.02.2009 (Annexure-P-4) and dated 20.2.2009 (Annexure-P-5), seeking the release of retiral benefits of late Dr. Azad Vir Shanwal. Ultimately, the reply Annexure P6 came on 30.03.2009, in which the respondents stated about the inquiry and that the findings that fake medical bills were submitted and got reimbursed. She was informed that the dues have not been released for the said reason. The matter rested there.

4. Thereafter the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, seeking writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to release Gratuity, family pension and other retiral benefits of Late Dr. Azad Vir Shanwal.

5. The short affidavit filed by the respondents shows that they have taken the stand that fake medical bills were submitted and medical reimbursement to the tune of Rs.74,04,766/- was claimed by Dr. Azad Vir Shanwal. Reference is also made to the inquiry report, as referred above. It is claimed that the University has got a legitimate right to adjust the aforesaid amount from the retiral dues of Late Dr. Azad Vir Shanwal. However, reply does not show that any adverse order was passed or show cause notice was issued or any regular inquiry was initiated against Dr. Azad Vir Shanwal during his lifetime. Apparently, it appears from the written statement of the respondents that no show cause notice was issued to Dr. Azad Vir Shanwal nor any regular inquiry was initiated, apparently, for the reason that immediately on the next day of the registration of FIR, he expired. Now, the position is that no departmental proceedings were initiated against the Dr. Azad Vir Shanwal during his lifetime and his widow claimed the retiral benefits. Now, the question would arise whether the department can adjust the amount of Rs.74,04,766/- from the retiral benefits of Dr. Azad Vir Shanwal, in the manner, in which, it is sought to be claimed in the written statement? I find the reply in negative. Once, the employee has expired, no departmental proceedings could be initiated against him. The matter was considered by a Division Bench of this court in Balwant Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and another, Recent Services Judgements (1950-1988) Volume I Page 627, wherein while taking note