HARDEEP KAUR Vs. MAHAKAUSHAL KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) 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 and others,1985 MahLJ 73 and Smt. Rajeshwari Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others,2011 2 AllLJ 287.

(3.) 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 Singh and others,1978 48 CompCas. 465 P & H and Mullah Ahmed Vs. Acharya N.G. Ranga Agriculture, 2006 4 ALD 310.