Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Home
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2025:CGHC:48023 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8330 of 2023 1 - Smt. Kamla Goswami Wd/o Late Shri Dilip Kumar Goswami Aged About 53 Years R/o Jail Line Road, Central Jail Bilaspur, Police Station - Civil Line Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, C.G., Present Address- Village- Jogipur, Tahsil- Takhatpur, Post- Bandha, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director General Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Head Quarter - Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Assistant Jail Superintendent District Jail Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Joint Director Fund Account And Pension, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner For State : :
Legal Reasoning
respondent No. 4 or by the State- respondents with regard to the departmental proceeding are undsiputedly after the death of husband of petitioner. Therefore, in such facts, the complete departmental proceeding is ex facie bad as in any case, no inquiry can be initiated against a dead person. Respondents may have initiate the inquiry proceeding during the service period of husband of petitioner or at least before his death, but after death, complete inquiry proceeding as well as impugned order dated 10.06.2013 is bad in law and not sustainable. 9. In the case of Smt. Rajeshwari Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., 2011(2) ADJ 643 decided on 07.01.2011, the High Court of Allahabad has held that as soon so as a person dies, he breaks all his connection with the worldly affairs, therefore, no disciplinary proceeding can be initiated against him. Relevant Paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 of the judgment are being quoted below:- "6. Holding of departmental enquiry and imposition of punishment contemplates a pre-requisite condition that the employee concerned, who is to be proceeded against and is to be punished, is continuing an employee, meaning thereby is alive. As soon as a person dies, he breaks all his connection with the worldly affairs. It cannot be said that the chain of employment would still continue to enable employer to pass an order, punitive in nature, against the dead employee….. 10 10. Similar dispute has also come before the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Jayanti Devi Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., 2001 (49) BLJR 2179 decided on 01.05.2001, the Court had directed the respondents to pay all post retiral benefits to the widow. Relevant Paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of the judgment are being quoted below:- "9. In the instant case admittedly the delinquent- employee died on 24.3.1999 and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 30.8.1999. In the enquiry report (Annexure F) the Enquiry Officer took notice of the fact that the delinquent-employee died on 24.3.1999. The Enquiry Officer further took notice of the fact that the delinquent-employee had requested the respondents to keep the departmental proceeding in abeyance till the disposal of the case pending before him. However, the Enquiry Officer after the death of delinquent employee called upon the respondents and on the basis of documents produced by them submitted enquiry report and on the basis of that report a formal order of dismissal was passed. In my opinion therefore the manner in which respondents proceeded with the departmental proceeding against the delinquent- employee, the enquiry report as well as the order of dismissal is vitiated in law and is null and void. I am, further of the view that the widow of the deceased employee cannot be deprived of her legitimate claim of death-cum-retirement benefits on the ground of dismissal of the employee on 11 the basis of departmental proceeding initiated after 6 years of the order of suspension and that to on the basis of enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer after proceeding ex parte against the deceased-employee who died much before the date when the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the matter and submitted his report.
Arguments
Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 18.09.2025 Order on Board 1. The petitioner challenges the letter dated 08.08.2023 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No. 3, which alleges an excess payment of Rs. 1,62,115/- made to the late husband of petitioner, Shri Dilip Kumar Goswami, former Head Warder at District Jail 2 Mungeli. The petitioner has been informed that this amount must be recovered from dues payable after his death and has been directed to consent to the deduction. Hence petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to this case from possession of the respondents for it's kind perusal; 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ/order/direction and quash/set-aside the letter/order dated 08.08.2023 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent no.3; 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ/order/direction and quash/set-aside the proceeding/ process initiated by the respondent authorities for recovery of Rs. 1,62,115/- from dues payable after death of Late Shri Dilip Kumar Goswami (the husband of the petitioner); and 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that late Shri Dilip Kumar Goswami, the husband of the petitioner, was employed as a Head Warder (Mukhya Prahari) at the District Jail in Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. He served in this capacity diligently until his unfortunate demise on 07.06.2023. Following his death, on 08.08.2023, respondent No. 3 issued a letter/order (Annexure P/1) 3 which alleged that a sum of Rs. 1,62,115/- had been paid in excess to Late Shri Dilip Kumar Goswami during his tenure. This letter further informed the petitioner that this alleged excess amount was required to be recovered from the dues payable to late Shri Goswami after his death. The petitioner was also directed to provide her consent for the deduction of the said amount from any pending dues. The petitioner vehemently denies any wrongdoing on the part of her late husband regarding the alleged excess payment. There was no fraud, misrepresentation, or error on his part that could have resulted in any undue or excess payment. Moreover, the recovery notice pertains to an alleged excess payment made over an extended period, specifically from 01.04.2006 to 30.06.2022. This indicates that the purported excess payment had been ongoing for over 17 years before the issuance of the impugned order dated 08.08.2023. The letter/order dated 08.08.2023 has been issued without affording her any opportunity of hearing or representation, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice and the legal mandate requiring due process before recovery or deduction of any amount. This lack of procedural fairness renders the order arbitrary, illegal, and liable to be quashed. Given the prolonged delay in raising this alleged claim after so many years and the failure to provide a chance for the petitioner to contest the same, the petitioner contends that the order is not only unsustainable in law but also unjust and oppressive. 4 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submits that the letter/order dated 08.08.2023 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No. 3 is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the settled principles of law. It has been passed without adherence to due process and lacks any legal basis, thereby warranting interference by this Court. The impugned order directing recovery of the alleged excess amount was issued without affording the petitioner any opportunity of hearing or representation. Such omission is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice, which require that a person affected by an adverse order must be given a reasonable chance to present their case before such order is passed. The alleged excess payment, for which recovery has been sought, does not arise from any fault, misrepresentation, or fraud on the part of Late Shri Dilip Kumar Goswami, the husband of the petitioner. He was an honest and diligent employee, and no error or wrongdoing can be attributed to him in respect of the payments made. Late Shri Dilip Kumar Goswami was a Class-III employee who has since passed away. Under the applicable legal provisions, the process of recovery of alleged excess payments from the dues payable posthumously is impermissible, making the impugned order untenable in law. The purported excess payment allegedly began in April 2006, over 17 years prior to the issuance of the impugned letter. Despite this prolonged period, no fault or negligence on the part of Late Shri Dilip Kumar Goswami has been established. Holding the petitioner responsible for such a 5 belated claim is both unjust and inequitable. The enforcement of recovery would impose undue financial hardship on the petitioner, who is already grappling with the loss of her husband. The financial burden caused by such recovery is neither fair nor reasonable in the circumstances of this case. The action of recovering alleged excess payments is impermissible under law, as upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih, reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334, which sets a clear precedent against such recoveries without proper safeguards and procedures. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the letter/order dated 08.08.2023 (Annexure P/1) is issued in accordance with the relevant rules and procedures, reflecting a bona fide recovery of an excess payment made to Late Shri Dilip Kumar Goswami. The recovery process is justified and lawful, as the State is entitled to reclaim public funds erroneously disbursed, regardless of the status of employee. It is further submitted that the petitioner was duly informed of the excess payment, and the opportunity for hearing, though not formally granted prior to issuance of the order, does not invalidate the recovery process, which is administrative in nature. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the petition. 6 6. The law on the subject, as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra) makes it clear that recovery of excess payments is impermissible in cases involving Class-III and Class- IV employees, retired employees or those retiring soon, payments made over five years prior, wrongful higher duty payments, or where recovery would be harsh, arbitrary, or inequitable, outweighing the right to employer reclaim funds and has observed thus : “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class- IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an 7 inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.” 7. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench) in the matter of Smt. Rekha Tomar vs. M.P. Warehousing and Logistics Corporation and Others passed in W.P. No. 17214 of 2017 vide order dated 30.08.2022 has held as under : “Whether a departmental enquiry can be initiated against a dead employee, if yes, then whether the respondents have followed the said procedure or not? 8. Counsel for the respondents could not point out any provision of law which empowers the Corporation to initiate a departmental enquiry against a dead employee. Furthermore, after the death of an employee takes place, the relationship of employer and employee also stand broken for the purposes of departmental enquiry. Even if the death takes place during the pendency of departmental enquiry, the departmental proceedings would stand abated. xxx xxx xxx 9. Even otherwise, it appears that the Corporation has tried to fix the liability of entire embezzlement on the shoulders of the dead employee by forfeiting an amount of Rs.16,48,000/- against a total embezzlement of Rs.6,43,88,390/-. No fact finding enquiry was conducted by the 8 respondents to find out as to whether husband of the petitioner was solely responsible or embezzlement took place in connivance with other officers. No opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner against any such proposed recovery. 10. Thus, the order dated 30.05.2017 which provides that against a loss of Rs.6,43,88,390/- the matter is closed by forfeiting an amount of Rs.16,48,000/- payable to the petitioner is hereby quashed.” 8. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Durgawati Dubey vs. State of U.P. and others by order dated 08.10.2018 passed in WRIT-A No.40057 of 2013 has held as under:- “By the perusal of records, this fact is undisputed that departmental proceeding was initiated after the death of husband of petitioner. It appears that only after order of this Court dated 22.02.2013, respondents have initiated the departmental proceeding ignoring this fact that husband of the petitioner died much earlier. It is also very ridiculous that Inquiry Officer has issued notice to petitioner to submit the reply for an allegation against her late husband. In fact this act of Inquiry Officer is absolutely suffers from non application of mind and also ignores settled law of departmental proceeding. How it is possible for the petitioner to submit reply with regard to the alleged allegation of embezzlement by her late husband. Whatever letters are referred in the counter affidavit, either filed by 9
Decision
10. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ application is allowed and the respondents are directed to release all the death-cum-retirement dues in favour of the petitioner, who is widow of the deceased employee as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order." 11. Very recently, in the matter of Yogita Harinkhede vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, passed in W.P. No. 2592 of 2025 vide order dated 11.02.2025, the Court has held as under : 9. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of pleadings and documents placed on record, it is apparently clear that in the present case also, recovery is being made from the widow of an employee who was belonging to Class-III service. The recovery is being made after death of deceased employee from his widow. Thus, in view of the case laws cited above, the impugned recovery being made from the petitioner vide Annexure P/4 cannot be sustained. 10. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 9.12.2024 (Annexure P/4) passed by the respondent no.5 is 12 hereby quashed. The amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner be refunded to her along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of recovery made pursuant to Annexure P/4 till date of payment. The respondents authorities are further directed to release the withheld amount to the petitioner and the family pension and pensionary dues payable to her husband on his death in favour of the petitioner.” 12. Having carefully considered the submissions of the parties, the documents on record, and the settled principles of law, this Court finds merit in the challenge made by petitioner to the letter dated 08.08.2023 issued by respondent No. 3. The impugned letter, which alleges an excess payment of Rs. 1,62,115/- made to the late Shri Dilip Kumar Goswami, and directs recovery of the said amount from dues payable after his death, is manifestly arbitrary and unsustainable in law. 13. Furthermore, the alleged excess payment spans over a prolonged period of more than 17 years, and no fault, fraud, or misrepresentation has been established against the late employee. In consonance with the authoritative judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra), recovery of excess payments from deceased employees or Class-III employees under such circumstances is impermissible, particularly when it results in harsh, inequitable, or arbitrary consequences. 13 14. In light of the foregoing, this Court also places significant reliance on the well-established precedents of various High Courts, which have consistently held that recovery proceedings or departmental inquiries against a deceased employee are legally impermissible and void ab initio. 15. Accordingly, this Court holds that the recovery of Rs. 1,62,115/- from the petitioner, the widow of Late Shri Dilip Kumar Goswami, is not permissible in law. The impugned letter/order dated 08.08.2023 (Annexure P/1) and the recovery process initiated thereunder are hereby quashed and set-aside. Any amount already deducted, if any, shall be refunded forthwith along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of deduction till refund. The respondents shall also release all pensionary and death-cum-retirement benefits due to the petitioner without delay. 16. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. Shayna Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge