RAJESHWARI DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is really a strange kind of case. One Sri Ghasi Ram working as Mali in Nagar Nigam Bareilly, was placed under suspension on 21.7.2005 and a charge-sheet was issued to him from the office of Nagar Nigam on 26.7.2005. The delinquent employee Ghasi Ram died on 31.7.2005/1.8.2005 and this information was received in the office of Nagar Nigam on 2.8.2005. Despite, the enquiry officer submitted report on 5.10.2005 stating that he gave opportunity to the delinquent employee which he did not avail and, thereafter, held all the charges proved against the dead employee.

(2.) The disciplinary authority, having noticed the fact that Ghasi Ram has died while in suspension, agreed with the enquiry report holding that the charges stand proved and the deceased employee was guilty of the misconduct. He also held that had he been alive, a major penalty would have been awarded but after his death, penalty of dismissal is not possible, hence as a measure of penalty, all the retiral dues including provident fund etc. shall not be paid to his legal heirs and they shall also not be considered for compassionate appointment.

(3.) A representation was made by the Petitioner; the widow of the deceased employee, that no enquiry proceeding could have continued after death of the deceased employee concerned, hence, continuance of proceedings and impugned order of punishment are illegal. Further that there is no provision authorizing the punishing authority to withhold as penalty, the retiral benefits including the provident fund of the deceased employee, which is a right of the legal heirs after death of the employee concerned. Thirdly, she also represented that right of compassionate appointment also cannot be denied since it is not prescribed as one of the punishment under the Rules. She also pointed out that in fact till the death of the employee concerned, even the alleged charge-sheet was not served upon him. She, therefore, requested not only for payment of all dues, after the death of the employee concerned, but also to provide compassionate appointment to one of the member of family. This representation has been rejected by order dated 26.3.2007 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) by Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Bareilly.