1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6629/2006 Smt. Badami Devi and another. vs. Municipal Board, Barmer and another. Date : 6.1.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Harish Purohit, for the petitioners. Mr.KR Choudhary, for the respondents. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. Deceased Joga Ram, husband & father of petitioners no.1 and 2 respectively, was an employee of Municipal Board, Barmer. It is alleged that he remained absent from duty without leave and, therefore, in the year 1994, a notice was issued to him asking him to explain why his service may not be terminated because of his absence from duty. The said notice was duly replied but enquiry was not completed. However, Joga Ram died on 5.3.2000 then straightaway on 12.2.2001, order Annex.19 was passed terminating his service with effect from 19.9.1994 which is retrospective. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents did not complete the enquiry 2 in the life time of the deceased employee even by proceeding ex-parte against him if he did not cooperate and then on 12.2.2001, the order to terminate his service with retrospective effect was passed and on that day, admittedly, the employee was not alive and, therefore, the impugned order is void ab-initio. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in a case where there is a long absence from duty, then it can be presumed that the employee himself has abandoned service. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of this relied upon a judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Abdul Kalam Sheikh vs. Registrar, MLS University and another reported in 2001 WLC (Raj.) UC 780. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. It is not in dispute that the enquiry was initiated in the year 1994 and was not completed and the order of termination of service was passed on 12.2.2001. Admittedly, that was passed when in the knowledge of the respondents, the employee was already dead. The order dated 12.2.2001 is absolutely illegal and void as has been passed against a dead person. 3 In view of the facts referred above, the judgment of Abdul Kalam (supra) has no application to the facts of this case and it cannot be presumed that the order dated 12.2.2001 has been passed on the ground that the employee has abandoned his service. In view of the above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed, hence, allowed. The order dated 12.2.2001 is set aside and the service of employee Joga Ram shall be deemed to have come to an end from the date when he died. The petitioners who are legal representatives of deceased Joga Ram shall be entitled to the consequential benefits. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya