This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

been filed against the order dated 18.05.2017 by which a recovery of

Rs.14,89,200/- has been effected against the husband of the petitioner

Late Shri Dilip Kumar Dhurvey (Principal), on the ground that in an

audit objection, a misappropriation of Rs.14,89,200/- was detected.

Some dates are important for disposal of this petition. The

husband of the petitioner, namely; Late Shri Dilip Kumar Dhurvey

expired on 02.02.2016. An audit inspection was conducted on

22.11.2016 and without fixing the liability of any person, it was opined

by the audit team that there is a misappropriation of an amount of

Rs.14,89,200/-. Without conducting any enquiry and without fixing

liabilities of the persons responsible for the said misappropriation, it

appears that the District Education Officer, District Balaghat jumped to

a conclusion that only the husband of the petitioner is responsible for the

said misappropriation and directed for recovery of Rs.14,89,200/- from

the outstanding dues of the husband of the petitioner.

Accordingly, the counsel for the respondents was directed to

address this Court as to whether any departmental action can be taken

against a dead person or not and whether any recovery of loss caused to

the Government is a minor penalty or not and whether a minor penalty

can be imposed without even issuing a show cause notice to the

delinquent officer or not?

It is fairly conceded by the counsel for the respondents that no

departmental action can be taken against a dead person. It is further

submitted that in view of Rule 10 of the M.P. Civil Services

3 W.P.No.13655/2017

(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, (in short CCA Rules)

recovery of loss caused to the State Government is a minor penalty.

5.

Thus, it is clear that the recovery of the entire misappropriated

amount from the outstanding dues of Late Shri Dilip Kumar Dhurvey by

the impugned order dated 18.05.2017 is contrary to law and that cannot

be done.

6.

From the return, it appears that before fixing the liability on a

dead person, no enquiry whatsoever was conducted by District

Education Officer, District Balaghat. There is no finding that except the

dead person, namely; Late Shri Dilip Kumar Dhurvey, no other person

was responsible for the said misappropriation. It appears that by taking

advantage of death of Late Shri Dilip Kumar Dhurvey, District

Education Officer, District Balaghat has tried to shift the entire

responsibility on to the shoulders of a dead person in order to give

implied clean chit to the persons, who are either still alive or who are

still in service. Thus, this conduct of District Education Officer, District

Balaghat cannot be appreciated and it is against the fair play of nature

justice. On the contrary, it appears that the District Education Officer,

District Balaghat by issuing the impugned order dated 18.05.2017 has

tried to save some other persons, who may be involved in

misappropriation.

7.

It is well established principle of law that no departmental action

can be initiated against a dead person for the simple reason that on the

death of employee, the employer-employee relationship would come to

an end.

8.

This Court in the case of Smt. Rekha Tomar Vs. M.P.

Warehousing and Logistics Corporation and Others by order dated

4 W.P.No.13655/2017

30^th August, 2022 passed in W.P. No.17214/2017 (Gwalior Bench) has

held as under:

“Whether a departmental enquiry can be

initiated against a dead employee, if yes,

then whether the respondents have followed

the said procedure or not ?

8. Counsel for the respondents could not point out

any provision of law which empowers the

Corporation to initiate a departmental enquiry

against a dead employee. Furthermore, after the

d