JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for State-respondents.

2. Present petition has been filed for quashing the impugned orders dated 04.11.2009, 05.11.2009, 14.10.2020 & 18.04.2011 and for payment of consequential dues.

3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, writ petition is being decided at the admission stage itself.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during pendency of writ petition, Raj Pal Singh (husband of petitioner) died and now petition is being contested by his wife after filing substitution application, which has been allowed.

5. He next submitted that husband of petitioner (Raj Pal Singh) was serving as Sub Inspector in Civil Police and after attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years, he was retired from service on 31.05.2009. While, he was posted at Ramabai Nagar, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him to award major punishment and also withholding the salary for the period of his absence from duty. Pursuant to that, a charge sheet dated 24.10.2008 was served upon husband of petitioner and he has submitted his reply dated 13.11.2008 denying all charges. Ultimately, Enquiry Officer has submitted enquiry report dated 06.03.2009 against the husband of petitioner with recommendation of punishment for withholding salary for the period of absence and further reversion to minimum pay scale for one year.

6. Pursuant to enquiry report dated 06.03.2009, two show cause notices dated 27.05.2009 has been issued to husband of petitioner by Disciplinary Authority, upon which, he has submitted reply dated 30.05.2009. Disciplinary Authority without considering the reply of husband of petitioner and without recording any finding upon that, has passed impugned orders dated 04.11.2066 & 05.11.2009 imposing the punishment proposed by Enquiry Officer. Against the impugned orders, husband of petitioner has preferred appeal before respondent no. 3, which was dismissed vide order dated 14.10.2010. After dismissal of appeal, husband of petitioner has preferred revision before respondent no. 2, which was also dismissed vide order dated 18.04.2011.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned orders are bad on two grounds.

8. First of all, Enquiry Officer has no business to propose the punishment and it is upon the Disciplinary Authority to take decision after considering the enquiry report and other material available on record. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of State of Uttaranchal Vs. Kharak Singh; 2008 (8) SCC 236.

9. Secondly, impugned orders are having no reason and no consideration of reply of husband of petitioner dated 30.05.2009 of show cause notice dated 27.05.2009. For this, he has taken specific plea in paragraph 11 of the affidavit filed along with petition and in the counter affidavit, there is a very vague denial not supported with any document. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Surendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. (Writ A No. 23290 of 2017) decided on 24.05.2017.

10. He next submitted that after death of deceased employee (in present case, husband of petitioner), no further or fresh enquiry may be initiated. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the matters of Durgawati Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others (Writ A No. 40057 of 2013) decided on 8.10.2018, Raj Kishori Devi Widow (deceased) Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others (Writ A No. 47122 of 2016) decided on 30.7.2019 and judgment of Apex Court in the matter of A.K.S. Rathore (dead) through LRS Vs. Union of India & another in Civil Appeal No. 7028 of 2022 (arising out of SLP © No. 22570 of 2016 decided on 28.9.2022.

11. Sri Govind Narayan Srivastava, learned standing counsel vehemently opposed the submissions raised by learned counsel fo