Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—The petitioner in this writ petition is aggrieved by the order dated 21.11.2011 whereby the retiral and other dues of late Abdul Kareem, father of petitioner No. 1 have been with held and the order dated 1.3.2012 whereby the claim for compassionate appointment made by the petitioner No. 1 has been rejected.

2. The case of the respondents is that late Abdul Kareem obtained appointment in the Revenue Department as Lekhpal and he was sent for training of Lekhpal but thereafter it was alleged that the petitioner alongwith some other persons had obtained the appointment by concealment of facts and practicing fraud, therefore their services were terminated under the U.P. Temporary Government Service (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. This order was challenged by the petitioner alongwith others in Writ Petition No. 1131 (S/S) of 1994 in which late Abdul Kareem was petitioner No. 4 and the writ petition was allowed on the ground that the services of the petitioner could be terminated after giving notice and after following the principles of natural justice. Against the judgment of the High Court dated 16.2.2000 a Special Appeal was filed which was dismissed on 8.10.2003. Thereafter a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 20.5.2010 and departmental proceedings held against him. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 30.6.2011 which was received in the office of Deputy District Magistrate, Deoria on 3.7.2011 but on 15.7.2011 Abdul Kareem died. In this view of the matter, no departmental action against late Abdul Kareem could be concluded.

3. Nevertheless, the disciplinary authority has proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 21.11.2011 holding that since the charges against late Abdul Kareem had already been proved in the enquiry proceedings and it had been established that late Abdul Kareem had obtained the appointment by fraudulent means, therefore, he would not be entitled to any retiral benefits. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition. Subsequently, the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner No. 1 as son of late Abdul Kareem has also been rejected by the second impugned order dated 1.3.2012.

4. I have heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Santosh Kumar Yadav for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

5. Shri Ashok Khare submits that once the father of the petitioner No. 1 Abdul Kareem expired, the entire departmental proceedings abated and even if the enquiry officer had given his findings against late Abdul Kareem, the same could not be acted upon by the disciplinary authority. Shri Khare further submits that once Abdul Kareem had expired no punitive order could have been passed against him withholding his retiral benefits or any other benefits as it was always open for the disciplinary authority to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer or to agree with the findings of the enquiry officer but due to the death of late Abdul Kareem nothing of this kind has happened, therefore, the disciplinary authority could not have passed the impugned order with holding the retiral dues of late Abdul Kareem, to be paid to his family members after his death. He further submits that since Abdul Kareem had expired before any penalty order could be passed against him he would be treated to be in service and for that matter in honorable service till his death without any stigma being attached to his appointment and on that ground the claim of the petitioner No. 1 for compassionate appointment could not have been rejected.

6. Learned standing counsel on the other hand submits that the charges against the petitioner had already been proved in the enquiry proceedings and his guilt having been established, there was nothing further left for the disciplinary authority except to accept the same, since it had been found in the enquiry that late Abdul Kareem had obtained appointment by producing fraudul