The departmental enquiry automatically terminates and abates upon the death of the delinquent employee, and any penalty imposed after the death is without jurisdiction.

With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties the matter is finally heard.

In this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 31-1-2012 by which penalty of recovery of pecuniary loss caused to the respondent-Bank from the emoluments payable to the deceased husband of the petitioner has been imposed.

2. The facts, giving rise to filing of the writ petition, briefly stated, are that the husband of the petitioner late Harpreet Singh Chandok was an officer in the respondent-Bank. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 25-11-2009. The husband of the petitioner submitted a reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet. On 17-4-2010, the Presenting Officer was asked to submit a written brief and defence representative was also asked to submit a written brief on 15-5-2010. Thereafter, it appears that the proceeding in the departmental enquiry was adjourned for submission of written brief of defence representative up to 25-9-2010. In the meanwhile, the husband of the petitioner died on 31-8-2010. After the death of the husband of the petitioner the Enquiry Officer submitted the report on 8-10-2010. An intimation was furnished on 25-9-2010 by the defence representative in the proceeding of the departmental enquiry about the death of the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted a representation to. the respondent-Bank for payment of the amount of GPF, gratuity, leave encashment and amount of group insurance etc. The petitioner sent a reminder to the respondents on 12-4-2011. However, by the impugned order dated 31-1-2012 punishment was imposed on the deceased husband of the petitioner. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly, before conclusion of the departmental enquiry the husband of the petitioner expired, therefore, the proceeding which was initiated against the husband of the petitioner had abated and consequently, no order of punishment could have been passed. It is further submitted that the petitioner is entitled to receive all the emoluments which were payable to the husband of the petitioner. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions in Hirabai Bhikanrao Deshmukh and another Vs. State of Maharashtra ana1 others, 1985 Mah.LJ 73 and Smt. Rajeshwari Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2011) 2 All LJ 287.

4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the writ petition preferred by the petitioner is premature as under Regulation 47 of the regulations governing the service conditions of the employees the petitioner has a remedy to file an appeal against the impugned order. It is further submitted that the husband of the petitioner participated in the departmental proceeding from 25-11-2009 till 17-4-2010 and at the instance of the defence representative the proceeding in the departmental enquiry was adjourned. It is also submitted that if any pecuniary loss is caused to the Bank, the Bank is entitled to recover the said amount from the emoluments payable to the employee. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel for the respondents has invited attention of this Court to Explanation to Regulation 44 of the Regulations. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the decision in Shiwalik Transport Co. Ltd. Vs. Thakur Ajit Shrgh and others, (1978) 48 Comp.Cas. 465 P & H and Mullah Ahmed Vs. Acharya N.G. Ranga Agriculture, 2006 (4) ALD 310.

5. I have considered the respective submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner expired on 31-8-2010 before conclusion of the departmental proceeding. The Mahakaushal Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 (in short "the 2010 Regulations") came into effect from 1-3-2011. Thus, prior to commencement of the aforesaid regulations, th