SHYAMA DEVI WIFE OF LATE SURAJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY Vs. BIHAR STATE FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER 'slate husband, Suraj Kumar Choudhary, wa s an Assistant Manager in the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and was posted at different Godowns at different time.

(2.) IT appears that a departmental proceeding was initiated against him for alleged unaccounted shortage in respect of stocks at Rohtas. While those proceedings were pending, a supplementary charge -sheet was given in respect of stocks relating to Darbhanga, Dumka, Vaishali and some other Godowns of Rohtas where he was posted. The said employee filed his reply to all those charges and participated in the enquiry proceedings. Thereafter, on 3.12.2003, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report. Enquiry report is Annexure -B to the counter affidavit. I may notice here that a bare reference to the enquiry report would show that there is little or no consideration of petitioner 'sdefence nor has any evidence at all been discussed. The enquiry report also notices in the end that over Rs. 3,69,834/ - had already been adjusted against the charges now framed. On 6.1.2004, the disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report. In the meantime, to the knowledge of the authority including the disciplinary authority, petitioner died on 24.12.2003. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, a purported second show cause was issued to the said employee showing him as deceased and thereafter the order of penalty for further recovery of balance amount has been passed against the dead employee i.e. the husband of the petitioner. Petitioner challenges these proceedings. The submission is simple. The disciplinary proceedings abate with the death of the employee. Here the authority had full knowledge, even before the enquiry report was accepted, that the employee had died. They chose to issue notice purporting to be the second show cause to a dead employee presumably through his wife -the petitioner.

(3.) HAVING considered the matter, in my view, the proposition of law is unexceptional. A departmental proceeding against an employee totally abates on death of an employee, for the simple reason that in order to punish an employee the employer -employee relationship must subsist. Once an employee died, the said relationship ceased. The proceedings thus abate. The defence, if any, is a personal defence. personal to the employee and no person can be substituted in place of a dead employee to defend the conduct of a dead employee because in employer - employee relationship there is no concept of substitution or succession. Thus, in my view, once an employee died on 24.2.03, the proceedings abated and if the proceeding is abated, no order therein could have been passed including the order of penalty dated 12.1.04 (Annexure -2). Thus Annexure -2 is liable to be quashed and is quashed as such. The penalty and the amount sought to be recovered from petitioner 'slate husband emoluments payable on his death, his retirement dues cannot be recovered from the petitioner or from the said dues. Any amount remains payable to the petitioner will have to be paid without such deduction.