JUDGMENT :

Suneet Kumar, J.

Civil Misc. Substitution Application No. 382501 of 2016

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The application to substitute the legal heir is allowed.

Necessary substitution to be carried out during course of the day.

2. Order on Memo of Petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Petitioner is the wife of the deceased/government employee, namely, Baidya Nath Pandey, a Junior Clerk with the U.P. Food and Civil Supplies Department. He was subsequently regularized on the post of Marketing Inspector by the Regional Food Controller Varanasi, Region Varanasi. Service conditions of the deceased/employee is governed by the U.P. Foods and Civil Supplies (Marketing Branch) Subordinate Service Rules, 1980. U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and Civil Services Regulation govern the departmental enquiry against the government servant. The deceased/employee retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31 January 2000, however, two days prior to retirement, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 29 January 2000, by the fourth respondent-Regional Food Controller Allahabad, Region Allahabad. The employee died on 15 February 2001 during pendency of the disciplinary proceeding initiated in terms of Article 351A of the Civil Service Regulations. During pendency of the writ petition, petitioner died on 8 November 2016, thereafter, the legal heir (son) was substituted.

4. The short question involved in the instant writ petition is as to whether the alleged loss caused to the government which was subject matter of departmental enquiry can be recovered from the heirs of the deceased employee from the post retiral dues.

5. The facts, inter se, parties are not in dispute. It is admitted by the respondent that the deceased/employee was a government servant and came to be placed under suspension pending enquiry two days prior of his retirement on the allegation of causing loss of Rs.4,60,243/- to the government. It is admitted that as per the provisions of Article 351A, an enquiry in respect of a retired government employee is deemed to have commenced/instituted if the officer is placed under suspension from an earlier date prior to his retirement. The charge sheet levelling four charges was issued to the deceased/employee after retirement. He did not respond and before he could submit his reply, he died, consequently, by the orders of the third respondent-Commissioner, Foods and Civil Supplies, Lucknow, enquiry was dropped.

6. Petitioner by the instant writ petition seeks the following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17.6.2016 in respect of deduction of amount to trhe tune of Rs. 1,50,939.00 from pension, Rs. 1,36,068.00 from gratuity and Rs. 1,19,236.00 from the commutation amount. Total amount comes to the tune of Rs. 4,06,243.00 from the post retirement benefit of the late husband of petitioner, on account of proposal/recommendation made by the Regional Food Controller Allahabad Region Allahabad on 18.12.2015 (Annexure no 9 to the writ petition).

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the amount of Rs. 4,06,243.00 which was illegally deducted by the pension, Gratuity and commutation of the post retirement benefit of late husband of petitioner vide letter dated 17.6.2016 along with 12% interest thereof as well as interest @ 12% on the late payment of paying the Family pension vide order dated 13.7.2016 for the period December 2000 to May 2016 a sum of Rs. 8,44,988/ forthwith.

7. It is not disputed by the respondents that before the enquiry could be concluded the employee died. The departmental enquiry did not proceed beyond the issue of the charge-sheet. This factual position is reflected from the averments of the respondents made in the counter affidavit.

8. Paragraphs-4, 7 & 8 of the counter affidavit is extracted:

4. That the contents of paragraph 3