IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2300 of 2004 KAUSHALYA DEVI, wife of late Kusheshwar Mehta, resident of village – Pothiya , P.S. - K. Nagar, District – Purnia __________________ Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector, Purnia. 3. The District Panchayat Officer, Purnia. 4. The Block Development Officer, Vaisi, Purnia. _______________ Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Pramod Kumar Mallick. For the respondents : Mr. Piyush Kumar Lal. --- 05. 6.7.2010 Husband of the petitioner was a Panchayat Sewak. He retired from service on 28.2.1994. Thereafter his post retirement dues has been settled including the family pension but certain act of omission and commission committed by him and the legacy falling therefrom has brought the lady before this Court. According to the State, husband of the petitioner was appointed as the convener for construction of a village road near Kath Pul of what was known as Road Plan No. 1/86-87. He was advanced money as well as foodgrains under the said scheme and project. According to the averments in the writ application made by the petitioner, her husband had completed the project and reported to the authorities, but the respondents were not satisfied with the so-called work and the claim of completion. A criminal case under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted against the husband of the petitioner. It is another issue that he was acquitted due to lack of evidence by the criminal court. It emerges that even a departmental proceeding 2 was initiated for the same set of charges. The enquiry officer recorded a finding of guilt by virtue of his enquiry report dated 23.3.2000 and thereafter an order of punishment was passed on 28.8.2001, which came to be communicated vide annexure-1 dated 14.9.2001. The punishment order was that the husband of the petitioner would refund a sum of Rs.27,138/- which was stated to have been misappropriated in lieu of payment of salary for the period of suspension. If the said money was not refunded then no salary for the period of suspension would be paid. First submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the enquiry carried on for many a years even after the acquittal of the petitioner’s husband by the criminal court. The order of punishment and the submission of the enquiry report was after the death of the husband of the petitioner. The death took place on 7.1.2000. In other words, the orders which have come to be passed by the respondents against the husband of the petitioner are against a dead man. Obviously, since the enquiry report came to be submitted after the death of the husband of the petitioner he could not be furnished a copy and no explanation could be taken from him. It is not the case of the respondents that in absence of the husband of the petitioner, any legal heir was asked to respond. Obviously, the respondents in their enthusiasm had overlooked a vital fact that proceeding had continued and order of punishment was passed against a dead man, which cannot be sustained. The factum of death stands corroborated by 3 Annexure-A, which has been brought by the State in their counter affidavit. Therefore, that issue is not in dispute. In the given facts therefore, the order of punishment conveyed or passed against the husband of the petitioner vide annexure-1 is quashed. Respondents are directed to make payments of salary for the period of suspension of the petitioner in view of the same. An early resolution of the issue is what this Court expects in view of the fact that the widow is before this Court seeking relief. The writ application is allowed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )