The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.9812 of 2025 Saudamini Thanapati ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Nihal Rath -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 09.04.2025 Order No. 01. 1. 2. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: this writ application, and “It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit issue the nature of writ of appropriate writ mandamus direct the Opp. Parties to drop the proceedings pending against the husband of the petitioner who died on 25.6.2020 and extend all the retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner along with 18% interest. in to Page 1 of 6. And/or may pass such other writ/ writs, order/orders, direction/ directions as this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper for the ends of justice.” 4. The present writ petition has been filed by the wife of a deceased-government employee with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite Parties to drop the pending disciplinary proceeding against the deceased-husband of the present Petitioner who died on 25.06.2020 and further for a direction to extend all retiral benefits in favour of the Petitioner along with the interest @ 18%. 5.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the deceased-husband of the present Petitioner was working as PEO, Loisingha Block under Bolangir District. While working as such, a Departmental Proceeding No.1315 was initiated against the deceased-husband of the Petitioner on 11.04.1997. On 10.12.2009 another Departmental Proceeding No.1829 was also initiated against the husband of the present Petitioner. Similarly, on 15.04.2015 another Departmental Proceeding No.373 was initiated against the deceased-husband of the present Petitioner. He further contended that the deceased-husband of the Petitioner was also entangled in a vigilance case bearing C.T.R. Case No.22/47 of 2001-2007. He further contended that by virtue of the judgment dated 28.07.2016, the husband of the Petitioner was acquitted of all charges in the criminal case. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the husband of the Petitioner died on 25.06.2020 while the above noted three departmental proceedings were pending against him. He further contended that the DPO, Balangir requested to the Tahasildar, Page 2 of 6. Balangir to submit an enquiry report on the assets acquired by the deceased-government employee out of the defalcated government money in terms of the Circular No.19806 dated 21.02.2012 under Annexure-5 to the writ petition. He further submitted that the Tahasildar, after conducting an enquiry through the RI, submitted an inquiry report dated 20.02.2023 under Annexure-10 to the writ petition indicating therein that there is no record found with respect to the deceased employee and the present Petitioner happens to be the only legal heir of the deceased-government employee. Accordingly, the Tahasildar forwarded the letter dated 02.03.2023 to the DPO, Balangir for taking necessary action. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that it is the settled position of law that on the death of the government employee the departmental proceedings which are pending and have not been finalized till the time of the death of the government employee shall abate. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.K.S. Rathore (Dead) through LRS v. Union of India & Anr. decided in Civil Appeal No.7028 of 2022 vide order dated 28.09.2022, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically observed in Para-8 that no final order can be passed in the disciplinary proceeding against a dead person. As such, the disciplinary proceedings continuing against a dead person shall abate on the death of such employee. He also referred to the judgments the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Kaushlya Devi v. State of Bihar and others in Civil Writ Petition No.9735 of 2021 decided vide judgment dated 11.01.2023. Referring to Para-16 of the judgment, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that it has also been held by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court that on the death of Page 3 of 6. the government employee the departmental proceeding shall abate and no order or punishment can be passed against a dead person. 8. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner also referred to the circular of the State Government dated 21.08.2012 under Annexure-5. The said circular clearly indicates that a decision has been taken by the G.A. Department, Government of Odisha on the subject matter of cases being reported to the government from different departments seeking their dues on finalization of pending disciplinary proceedings after death of the charged officer. By virtue of the aforesaid circular, the G.A. Department has issued a clear instruction, i.e. the charged officer dies before finalization of the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him under the O.C.S.(C.C. & A) Rules, 1962, the proceeding should be immediately closed on the death of the charged officer. However, such circular is subject to a condition that in those cases where the defalcated money belonging to the government has been used by the legal heirs for acquiring any assets, then the government would have the right to recover such assets as was acquired and inherited by the legal heirs of the government servant after his death. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that in view of the judgments referred to hereinabove as well as the circular of the G.A. Department dated 21.08.2012, all pending departmental proceedings against the husband of the Petitioner which were not finalized till the death of the husband of the Petitioner on 25.06.2020 shall abate. He further contended that pursuant to the circular under Annexure-5 an enquiry was conducted and the Tahasildar after conducting the enquiry has submitted a report that no such assets have been acquired by the only surviving legal heir of the deceased-government employee, i.e. the Page 4 of 6. present Petitioner. He further contended that although the Petitioner has approached the Opposite Parties by filing a representation on 21.10.2024 under Annexure-11, however, no decision has been taken on such representation. As a result of which, the Petitioner is facing a distressful situation and is passing through a financial crisis. 9. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the circular referred to by the Petitioner under Annexure-5 to the writ petition is not a blanket one. He further contended that the second part of the circular, it has been resolved that the government can proceed against the legal heirs who have inherited the assets which have been acquired from the defalcated government money. However, he further contended that since the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a representation on 21.10.2024, and in the event such representation is pending before the Opposite Party No.1, she will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner strictly in accordance with law and within a stipulated period of time. 10. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of the factual background, further keeping in view the settled legal position as has been discussed
Decision
hereinabove, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner dated 21.10.2024 under Annexure-11 to the writ petition, keeping in view the law discussed hereinabove as well as the circular of the government dated 21.08.2012 under Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The representation of the Petitioner shall be disposed of by passing a Page 5 of 6. speaking and reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. It is further made clear that in the event it is found that the departmental proceedings were not finalized by the time the husband of the Petitioner died on 25.06.2020, the Opposite Parties shall consider such proceedings to have been abated and accordingly, necessary follow up steps be taken for sanction and disbursal of the pensionary and other retiral benefits as is due and admissible to the Petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of taking such decision. 11. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. S.K. Rout ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Apr-2025 09:48:18 Page 6 of 6.