IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 15.01.2025 BHAGWATI DEVI ... Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.

****

Present: Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tapan Kumar, DAG, Haryana.

****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner is challenging the order dated 26.10.2017 whereby respondent No.3 has directed effecting recovery after more than four years of retirement of her husband and that too after his death and directing adjustment of the retiral benefits of the husband of the petitioner against the said recovery.

He contends that the present writ petition was earlier heard at length and vide judgment dated 08.08.2023, the same was allowed. The said order is extracted as under:

“1. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.10.2017 (Annexure P-4) by which, the order imposing recovery has been passed by the Department against the late husband of the petitioner.

2. The facts which are necessary for the determination of the issue in hand are as cited below:-

3. The husband of petitioner namely Ramkishan was working as Forest Guard with the Department of Forest, Haryana. During the service career, certain disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, which were pending consideration with the Department. The said proceedings started from the year 2009 onwards and total six disciplinary proceedings were being faced by the late husband of the petitioner.

4. Before the disciplinary proceedings could reach to its conclusion, the husband of the petitioner unfortunately died while in service on 25.09.2015. After the said date, the petitioner became entitled for the benefits in respect of the service rendered by her late husband but the benefits were not being released to her on the ground that her late husband was facing departmental enquiries, which departmental enquiries were still pending and till the said departmental proceedings reached its logical conclusion, no benefit in respect of the service rendered by the late husband of the petitioner, can be extended to the petitioner.

5. Ultimately, vide order dated 26.10.2017 (Annexure P-4), all the disciplinary proceedings pending against the late husband of the petitioner, were decided and after holding the husband of the petitioner guilty of the allegations, punishment of recovery of a sum of Rs.5,84,522/- was imposed upon the late husband of the petitioner. The leave encashment of the late husband of the petitioner was adjusted against the recovery order by the Department and remaining amount of Rs.2,700,62/- was waived off by the respondents. The said order dated 26.10.2017 (Annexure P-

4) is under challenge in the present writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in the present case, the moment, an employee against whom the disciplinary proceedings are pending, dies, the said proceedings cannot continue further and those proceedings abate hence, after the death of the husband of the petitioner, the disciplinary proceedings could not have been continued so as to hold him guilty of the allegations and to pass the impugned order directing the recovery of an amount of Rs.5,84,522/- from a deceased employee.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that once on the date when the husband of the petitioner died, there were six disciplinary proceedings pending against him, only those proceedings have been taken to the logical end after his death and the orders have been passed wherein, the husband of the petitioner was found guilty of the allegations and recovery of the loss suffered by the Department was ordered to be recovered.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

9. The first question which arise in the present petition is whether, the proceedings which are pending against an employee during his service career, will remain intact after his/her death or the sam