IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9702 of 2004 SHYAMA DEVI wife of late Suraj Kumar Choudhary, resident of Mohalla- Bhkatoli, Dhurwa More, Post Office- Bundu, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand). Versus 1. THE Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director,Patna. 2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd,Patna. 3. The Chief of Claim, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd,Patna-cum- the Enquiry Officer. 4. The Chief of Administration, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd, Sone Bhawan, Bir Chand Patel Path,Patna. 5. The District Manager, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd, Munger, District- Munger. 6. The District Manager, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd, Rohtas at Sasaram, District- Rohtas. 7. The District Manager, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd, Darbhanga, District- Darbhanga. 8. The District Manager, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd, Dumka, District- Dumka (Jharkhand). 9. The District Manager, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd, Vaishali at Hajipur,District- Vaishali. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Purusottam Kumar Jha and Ambrish Kumar Jha. For the Corporation : Mr. Keshav Srivastava, Sr.Adv. and Mr. Nirmal Kumar 9 27.8.09 Petitioner’s late husband ,Suraj Kumar Choudhary, was an Assistant Manager in the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and was posted at different Godowns at different time. 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 chargesheet was given in respect of stocks relating to Darbhanga, Dumka, Vaishali and some other Godowns of Rohtas where he was - 2 - 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’s defence 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. 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 - 3 - 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’s late husband emoluments payable on his death his retirement due cannot be recovered from the petitioner or from the said due. Any amount remains payable to the petitioner will have to be paid without such deduction. Petitioner next submits that the deduction , as made earlier, of an amount of Rs. 3,69,834/- had been made without any proceeding and as such those amounts are liable to be refunded. Mr. Keshav Srivastava, learned Senior counsel for the Corporation submits that those deductions were made almost one decade back. They were never objected to or challenged by the employee concerned. That being so, now after almost ten years, the same cannot be permitted to be challenged. He further submits that the employee himself took no step to challenge to those deductions rather permitted those deductions from his salary and other emoluments . - 4 - Now, after his death , his wife cannot be permitted to challenge the same. In my view, the contention on behalf of the respondents has to be accepted. The deductions were made with the consent though, as submitted by the petitioner, not voluntarily of the employee concerned. He chose not to challenge . Now after his death ,it will not be permissible for the widow to challenge the same, which her husband had chosen not to challenge. Thus, this contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. With the aforesaid observation and direction this writ petition stands disposed of. Needless to say that the Corporation would now ensure payment of all outstanding dues payable to the petitioner in respect of services already rendered by her late husband, which were sanctioned as far back as in 2004 expeditiously and not later than two months from today. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J)