ORDER :

(Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Sri Vinayak Ranjan, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. The case was heard on 17.11.2022 and the Court has passed the following order:

"Shri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks and no more time to file counter affidavit.

List this matter on 15.12.2022.

Interim order, if any, is extended till the next date of listing."

3. Despite order dated 17.11.2022, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 who has passed the impugned order dated 27.05.2022.

4. In such view of the matter, the Court proceeded to decide the case on merits.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that husband of petitioner was working on the post of Jr. Engineer. During his posting at Shamli, a charge sheet dated 23.02.2021 was served upon him, but before submission of reply to the charge sheet, he died on 02.05.2021 due to heart failure (the date of death of husband of petitioner has been wrongly transcribed as 02.05.2022 in the order of this Court dated 21.09.2022).

6. Ultimately, the inquiry committee came to the conclusion that as the husband of petitioner died during the pendency of the inquiry proceedings, therefore, it is required on the part of respondent authorities to drop the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. Relevant paragraph of the same is being quoted hereinbelow-

^^tkap lfefr dk er gS fd vkjksih lsok LoŒ xqjn;ky flag] rRdkyhu voj vfHk;Urk vUrxZr fo|qr forj.k [k.M&r`rh;] 'kkeyh lEizfr voj vfHk;Urk vUrxZr fo|qr forj.k [k.M&f}rh;] 'kkeyh ¼fnoaxr½ fd fo:) vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh ds yfEcr jgrs gq, fnukad 02-05-2021 dks LoxZokl gks tkus ds QyLo:i 'kkldh; QkŒ laŒ 1301@ch&2@2003&24 fnukad 26-05-03 ds vkyksd esa vkjksfir lsod dks mDr izdj.k esa fdlh Hkh izdkj n.M nsuk lEHko u gksus ds n`f"Vxr vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh lekIr djuk fof/kd n`f"V ls mfpr gksxkA^^

7. After death of the husband of petitioner, no terminal dues were paid to her, therefore, she has preferred Writ Petition No. A16683 of 2021, which was disposed of on 07.12.2021 with direction to respondent to take decision upon the representation of the petitioner dated 21.12.2021. Pursuant to that, representation of the petitioner was decided and vide impugned order dated 27.05.2022 Rs. 10,14,594/-was deducted from the retiral dues of late husband of the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order impugned is absolutely bad. He further submitted that it is undisputed that without submitting the reply to the charge sheet dated 23.02.2021, husband of petitioner died and considering this fact, inquiry committee also opined that disciplinary proceeding should have been dropped against the petitioner, but ignoring the recommendation of the inquiry committee, Rs. 10,14,594/-has been deducted from the terminal dues of husband of petitioner as punishment. He firmly submitted that in light of settled provision of law, no disciplinary proceeding can be continued against a dead person and, accordingly no punishment can be awarded by the way of deduction of any amount.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention, placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Smt. Rajeshwari Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 2011(2) ADJ 643 decided on 07.01.2011, Gulam Gausul Azam and others Vs. State of U.P. and others 2014 (5) ADJ 558 decided on 12.05.2014, Onkar Singh Verma Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Ors. 2018 (3) ADJ 272, decided on 09.01.2018, Writ A No. 40057 of 2013 Durgawati Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors., decided on 08.10.2018, Writ A No. 47122 of 2016: Rajkishori Devi Widow(deceased) Vs. State of U.P. And 4 Ors, decided on 30.07.2019, judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Hirabhai Bhikanrao Deshmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (1985) ILLJ 469 Bom decided on 10.10.1984, judgment of