Back
High Court of Madhya Pradesh
G.S.Ahluwalia, J.
REKHA TOMAR – APPELLANT
Versus
Madhya Pradesh WAREHOUSING AND LOGISTICS CORPORATION, BHOPAL & ANR. – RESPONDENTS
W. P. No. 17214 of 2017
Decided On : 30-08-2022
Article 226 - Death Claims - Madhya Pradesh Warehousing and Logistic Corporation Staff Regulations, 1962 - Regulation 22(1)(e) - Recovery of pecuniary loss - Departmental enquiry against a dead employee - Court held that recovery of loss cannot be imposed without formal charges and opportunity for explanation - Departmental enquiry cannot be initiated against a dead employee - Court quashed impugned order and directed payment of death claims with interest - Directed corporation to conduct fact-finding enquiry and recover amount from guilty officers
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an order by the Respondent No. 1 forfeiting death claims payable to her late husband, an employee of Madhya Pradesh Warehousing and Logistic Corporation, and to recover the amount with interest. The respondents claimed that the amount was forfeited due to the husband's alleged involvement in embezzlement.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the recovery of loss cannot be imposed without formal charges and an opportunity for explanation. It held that a departmental enquiry cannot be initiated against a dead employee and quashed the impugned order. The Court directed the corporation to conduct a fact-finding enquiry and recover the amount from guilty officers.
Issues: The issues involved the forfeiture of death claims, the legality of initiating a departmental enquiry against a dead employee, and the recovery of embezzled amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that recovery of loss cannot be imposed without formal charges and an opportunity for explanation. It also ruled that a departmental enquiry cannot be initiated against a dead employee.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the impugned order, directed payment of death claims with interest, and instructed the corporation to conduct a fact-finding enquiry and recover the embezzled amount from guilty officers.
ORDER : – This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief :
i) That, the order impugned dated 30-5-2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent No. 1 may kindly be quashed with a further direction to the respondents to pay death claims payable to the petitioner on account of death of her husband along with interest @ 20% per annum and heavy cost may also be awarded, in the interest of justice. ii) Cost of the petition be awarded or any other order or direction deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be issued in the favour of the petitioner.
2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that husband of the petitioner namely Santosh Singh Tomar was an employee of Madhya Pradesh Warehousing and Logistic Corporation and was working on the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Data Entry Operator. He died on 1-8-2015 in a road accident while he was in duty. At the time of death, he was also holding the post of Incharge Branch Manager, Branch Patan. After the death of her husband, the petitioner being the legal heir started claiming death claims as per the entitlement in accordance with the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Warehousing and Logistic Corporation Staff Regulations, 1962 (in short “Regulations, 1962”). However, instead of making payment of death claims of the husband of the petitioner, respondents served a letter dated 30-5-2017 issued in exercise of powers under the Regulation 22(1)(e) of the Regulations, 1962 thereby informing that death claims payable to the petitioner have been forfeited in the welfare of the Corporation. Total amount of Rs. 16,48,000/- has been forfeited. It is submitted that Regulation 22(1)(e) of the Regulations, 1962 has no application to the facts of the case. The impugned order has been passed without any application of mind.
3. The respondents have filed their return and submitted that after the death of Shri Santosh Singh Tomar, the petitioner has been given compassionate appointment and an amount of Rs. 4,73,430/- by way of provident fund has also been paid to the petitioner. After the death of husband of the petitioner, one Shri Shrikant Jain, Junior Assistant was posted as a Branch Manager, Branch Patan. 5 member committee was constituted for handing over the charge of Branch Patan to Shri Shrikant Jain. All 39 godowns were inspected by the said committee which were under the control of the husband of the petitioner. Out of 39 godowns, irregularity and deficiency of food grains was found in 24 godowns and, accordingly, the committee calculated total deficiency of food grains which came to Rs. 6,43,88,390/-. After considering the deficiency of food grains in Branch godowns, an amount payable to the petitioner has been forfeited. Since the petitioner has been given an appointment on compassionate ground, therefore, the family of the petitioner would not face any economic hardship.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Counsel for the respondents was directed to point out the provision under which an amount of Rs. 16,48,000/- has been forfeited and was also directed to point out the procedure which was adopted by the respondents for coming to a conclusion that late husband of the petitioner was responsible for the loss of Rs. 6,43,88,390/-.
6. Counsel for the respondents once again relied upon the Regulation 22 of the Regulations, 1962 which reads as under : –
22. Imposition of Penalties. – 1. Any employee committing a breach of the regulations of the Corporation or being guilty of negligence, inefficiency or indolence in performance of his duties or knowingly doing anything detrimental to the interests of the Corporation or in conflict with its instructions or committing a breach of discipline or being guilty of any other act of Misdemeanour or is convicted of a criminal offence shall be liable to the following penalties – (a) Fine (b) Censure (c) Delay or stoppage of increments or promotion. (d) Reduction to a lower post in his
Recovery of loss cannot be imposed without formal charges and an opportunity for explanation. Departmental enquiry cannot be initiated against a dead employee.
The court emphasized that a departmental inquiry must be conducted fairly and impartially, and findings cannot stand if the inquiry officer is biased or involved as a witness.
The court ruled that disciplinary proceedings against a government employee must cease upon their death, and any dues must be paid to the family without delay.
Disciplinary proceedings cannot be continued after an employee's retirement to withhold retiral benefits unless specific service regulations explicitly provide for such post-retirement continuation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the recovery of dues from a retired employee and the continuation of a departmental enquiry after retirement must be in accordance with the ap....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
