USHA RANI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is widow of the deceased employee as a staff in the District Court Administration, challenges the recovery action by a direction to deposit an amount of Rs.6,55,483/-. The amount was alleged to have been embezzled by the petitioner's husband during his service. This demand had a ramification of denial of the retiral dues particularly of the family pension, which the petitioner was entitled to as the widow of the deceased employee. The petitioner's husband had died while still in service on 16.08.2001. During his service, there was no inquiry against him nor was the petitioner's husband involved in any form of inquiry for any amount alleged to have been embezzled by her husband. The imputation after his death was made after an audit party sought for details of documents for the period from 16.04.2001 to 26.04.2001. It appears that it was then that the Chief Judicial Magistrate complained on 22.08.2001 ( i.e. after the death of the petitioner's husband) that an amount of Rs.1,98,005/-had been embezzled, which fact was known for verification made from the Treasury Office at Faridkot. The incident was complained to the High Court and the High Court held a discreet inquiry and secured a report that the petitioner's husband had made the embezzlement. It is admitted fact that at no stage the petitioner was ever involved and the whole proceedings were done after the death and behind the back of the petitioner. The petitioner's challenge to the action is that there cannot be a recovery action after the lifetime of the petitioner's husband on a determination made after his death, especially when no inquiry had been pending against him during his lifetime. Even a claim against the estate cannot arise except in respect of admitted amounts. If the amount claimed as embezzled was denied by the person against whom the recovery was sought or when the recovery was made from the hands of the person in whom the estate of the deceased could have fallen and if it were to be contended that the fact of embezzlement itself came into light only after the death of the person even then, unless there are any specific rules which allowed for determination of such an amount after the death, it cannot be merely an assessment made unilaterally that would allow for Administration to make recovery against the legal representative of the deceased employee. I would, therefore, quash the proceedings taken by the respondent for recovery.

(2.) The next limb of the claim of the petitioner is that the pensionary benefits have been denied, although the gratuity and other benefits have been given to the petitioner. The Civil Services Rule 2.2 allows for 'recoveries from pensions' in a case where there is a proceeding pending at the time of retirement and which is completed thereafter and through such an inquiry the amount is determined. Rule 2.2(b) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II also provides for commencement of inquiry after the retirement of a person if the incident complained of fell within a period of 4 years before the retirement. In such an eventuality, the previous sanction of the Government is also required to be obtained. The petitioner refers to a Government notification, which deals with the situation, where during the pendency of an inquiry, if the retired employee died, the inquiry should be dropped and legal heirs of such employees shall be granted the family pension and other benefits keeping in view the service. This instruction of the Government issued on 23.06.1992 is as regards the pending inquiry against a Government employees, who died during the inquiry. The Learned Counsel states that there are no specific rules or instructions that provide for commencement of inquiry after the death of a person. The attempt of the counsel is to show that the situation of death happening before inquiry had started, could not be any worse than when the inquiry had actually started and the person had died. If in a latter situation, the inquiry must be stopped, it ought to be better for the estate of a person where inquiry had not been started during the entire lifetime.

(3.) The Learned Counsel for the respondents refers me to Rule 6.27 that falls within the "section V-emoluments reckoning for pension". The said rule contains provision for forwarding the papers to Accountant General, Punjab. This rule contains a procedure for the establishment to sent all the papers to the Accountant General with a covering letter with the Government employee's service book duly completed up-to-date have been seen and forwarded. Rules 6.28 deals with sanction, drawal and disbursement of provisional family pension and gratuity; and Rule 6.29 deals with authorization of final pension and balance of the gratuity in case of deceased Government employee. None of the provisions empower any right of adjustment against pensionary benefits. Rule 6.30 refers to dues pertaining to the Government accommodation and amounts, which could be recovered even after the death of the employee. Rule 6.30(2) deals with dues other than those mentioned to in sub-rule (1) relating to the house accommodation dues. Sub-para 2 refers to the dues as per Rule 9.2A. There is no rule like 9.2A but if the reference must be made to the Rule 9.16, it deals with the chapter relating to determination and authorization of the amounts of pension and gratuity. Rules 9.17 and 9.18 make no provision relating to adjustment or withholding of pension for alleged embezzlement unearthed after the death and sum determined without any inquiry involving either the deceased employee or the legal representative of the deceased. Rule 9.16 deals with the recovery and adjustment of Government dues. The rule allows for Government dues under two heads. The rule is reproduced below: