Leelawati Gupta vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health Family Welfare Govt. Sectt. Lko And 5 Others

AFR
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 9421 of 2023
Leelawati Gupta
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health Family Welfare
Govt. Sectt. Lko And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : S M Singh Royekwar, Akhand Vikram Singh, Saksham
Agarwal, Sumeet Tahilramani, Surya Bhan Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 18
HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.
Heard Shri Sumeet Tahilramani learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
1.
Ashwani Kumar Singh Rathore, learned Standing counsel for respondents.

Relief Sought
2. The petition has been filed seeking mandamus for releasing the salary
dues of the late husband of the petitioner namely Ram Nath Gupta who died
in harness on 02.12.2016 while working as Pharmacist (Homeopathy) in
Government Homeopathic Hospital, Dhanaupur, Sultanpur.

Factual Background
The petitioner is the widow of late Ram Nath Gupta, who died in harness
3.
on 02.12.2016 while serving on the post of Pharmacist (Homeopathy) at the
Government Homeopathic Hospital, Dhanaupur, Sultanpur.
4. The brief facts, as set forth in the petition, are that the petitioner’s husband
was initially appointed on 22.11.1984 to the post of Compounder in the
Government Homeopathic Hospital. Subsequently, by order dated
11.09.2001, the Director (Homeopathy) dismissed him from service while he
was working as a Pharmacist. The said dismissal order has been brought on
record as Annexure No. 3. Aggrieved by the same, the order of dismissal

WRIA No. 9421 of 2023
2
was challenged before this Court. Pursuant to various orders passed by this
Court, the State Government, vide order dated 30.01.2004, reinstated all
similarly situated Pharmacists (Homeopathy) into service. Consequent
thereto, the Director (Homeopathy), by order dated 13.02.2004, issued
posting orders to the reinstated Pharmacists. Further, in continuation of the
reinstatement, the Director (Homeopathy), vide communication dated
27.04.2004, issued necessary directions for payment of salary to such
reinstated employees.
5. The petitioner’s husband was once again dismissed from service on
03.07.2007. Challenging the said action, he preferred Writ Petition No. 4633
(S/S) of 2007 titled Ram Nath Gupta vs. State of U.P. and others . During the
pendency of the said writ petition, certain other similarly situated employees,
who had also been dismissed on identical grounds, approached this Court by
filing Writ Petition No. 640 (S/S) of 2010 titled Rajendra Pratap Srivastava
vs. State of U.P. and others , which came to be dismissed by order dated
04.02.2010. Against the said judgment, Special Appeal No. 123 of 2010
titled Rajendra Pratap Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others, was
preferred, which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide
judgment and order dated 12.08.2010. The Division Bench set aside the
order under challenge and directed reinstatement of the appellant forthwith,
along with payment of salary from the date of joining. It was further directed
that the period of dismissal shall not be treated as a break in service.
Additionally, liberty was granted to the authorities to conduct a fresh inquiry
from the stage of submission of reply to the charge-sheet, to be concluded
within a maximum period of four months from the date of service of the
certified copy of the order.
6. Since the writ petition filed by the petitioner’s husband, being Writ
Petition No. 4633 (S/S) of 2007 , involved identical questions of fact and law,
a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 27.05.2011, allowed the
said writ petition in terms of the judgment and order dated 12.08.2010
passed in Special Appeal No. 123 of 2010 , insofar as it related to the
petitioner’s husband.
7. The respondents, vide office order dated 20.12.2011, acknowledged and
acted upon the aforesaid order passed in Writ Petition No. 4633 (S/S) of 2007

WRIA No. 9421 of 2023
3
. In view of the directions issued in Special Appeal No. 123 of 2010, the
respondents were under an obligation to conclude the disciplinary
proceedings within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the
certified copy of the said order. Since the respondents had acknowledged the
order by issuing the office order dated 20.12.2011, it can reasonably be
inferred that the time period for concluding the inquiry was to be reckoned
from that date. In compliance with the judgment dated 27.05.2011, the
Director (Homeopathy), by office memorandum dated 20.12.2011, reinstated
the petitioner’s husband in service at Government Hospital, Dhanaupur,
Sultanpur. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner’s husband was also a
beneficiary of the judgment dated 12.08.2010 passed in Special Appeal No.
123 of 2010 , and therefore, the inquiry against him was required to be
concluded within the stipulated period of four months.

8. In furtherance thereof, an inquiry committee was constituted under the
Chairmanship of Dr. Anand Kumar Chaturvedi, the then Principal of
Government Shri Durgaji Homeopathy Medical College and Hospital,
Azamgarh. The petitioner’s husband appeared before the inquiry committee
on 19.09.2012 and submitted his written statement. The Inquiry Officer,
however, found him guilty of obtaining appointment on the basis of forged
and fabricated documents. The inquiry report dated 08.07.2013 was
forwarded to him through a letter dated 10.07.2014 issued by the
Directorate, calling upon him to submit his reply along with supporting
documents.
9. In response thereto, late Ram Nath Gupta submitted his reply on
22.08.2014, asserting his innocence and requesting re-investigation and a
fresh inquiry. Thereafter, vide letter dated 19.09.2014, the Directorate
forwarded copies of educational and technical qualification certificates along
with other relevant records pertaining to his appointment, and directed him
to appear before the authorities. In reply, the petitioner’s husband, vide letter
dated 13.11.2014, informed that he was suffering from cancer and
undergoing treatment at Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, and accordingly
sought time on medical grounds. Subsequently, on 02.12.2016, he passed
away while the departmental inquiry was still pending. Notably, no final
order concluding the disciplinary proceedings or imposing any punishment
was ever passed against him. The death certificate has been placed on record

WRIA No. 9421 of 2023
4
as Annexure No. 1. Thus, the departmental inquiry remained inconclusive at
the time of his death.
Arguments of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner
10. Submission of the petitioner is that upon the death of the petitioner’s
husband during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the said
proceedings stood abated. It is further contended that in view of the specific
direction issued in Special Appeal No. 123 of 2010 (supra), requiring the
inquiry to be concluded within a period of four months from the date of
receipt of the certified copy of the order, the respondents cannot be
permitted to keep the inquiry pending indefinitely without seeking
appropriate extension or leave from this Court. Since Writ Petition No. 4633
(S/S) of 2007 filed by the petitioner’s husband had been allowed in terms of
the aforesaid Special Appeal, the inquiry in his case was also required to be
concluded within the same stipulated period.
11. It is also submitted that, by virtue of the acknowledgment letter dated
20.12.2011 issued by the Director (Homeopathy), the petitioner’s husband
stood reinstated, and from that date onwards, the respondents were under a
legal obligation to conclude the inquiry within four months. However, it
remains undisputed that the inquiry proceedings were not concluded within
the prescribed time and, in fact, continue to remain pending.
12. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments rendered by this
Court, wherein it has been categorically held that in cases where a
disciplinary inquiry remains incomplete and the delinquent employee dies
during its pendency, such proceedings cannot thereafter be continued or
concluded:
(i) A.K.S. Rathore (Dead) through LRs vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal
No. 7028 of 2022 (with particular emphasis on paragraph 8);
(ii) Rajeshwari Devi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 SCC OnLine All 42
(with emphasis on paragraph 6);
(iii) Pushpa Devi vs. State of U.P. and another, Writ-A No. 15004 of 2022

WRIA No. 9421 of 2023
5
(with emphasis on paragraph 11).
13. It has further been contended on behalf of the petitioner that where a
court directs that an inquiry be concluded within a specified period, the same
is required to be strictly adhered to, and the proceedings cannot be permitted
to continue beyond the stipulated time without obtaining leave of the Court.
In support of this submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Prakash
Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 891, particularly paragraphs 62 and 63
thereof.
14. Lastly, it has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents
are illegally withholding the retiral and consequential service benefits of late
Ram Nath Gupta, the petitioner’s husband, on the pretext that his service
book and GPF passbook are not traceable. In this regard, learned counsel for
the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment rendered
in Satya Prakash Srivastava vs. State of U.P., Writ-A No. 5008 of 2024 , to
contend that the department cannot take shelter under the plea of missing
service records to deny an employee the benefits to which he is otherwise
lawfully entitled.

Arguments of Learned Counsel for the Respondents
15. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has opposed the submissions
advanced on behalf of the petitioner, contending that disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner’s husband, late Ram Nath Gupta, were
still pending. It is further submitted that in the absence of the service book
and GPF records, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any retiral or
consequential benefits.

Consideration by the Court

16. The Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
17. It is not in dispute between the parties that late Ram Nath Gupta died on
02.12.2016 while in service. It is further admitted that he had been reinstated
in service on 20.12.2011 and had continuously discharged his duties from
the date of reinstatement till his demise on 02.12.2016. It is also an admitted

WRIA No. 9421 of 2023
6
position that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner’s
husband remained pending and were not brought to their logical conclusion.
The State has failed to assign any plausible or justifiable reason as to the
basis on which the disciplinary proceedings could be continued beyond the
stipulated period of four months, particularly in the face of the categorical
directions issued in Special Appeal No. 123 of 2010 , read with the order
passed in Writ Petition No. 4633 of 2007 (Ram Nath Gupta vs. State of U.P.
and others).
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Prakash
Singh (supra) , has clearly enunciated in paragraphs 62 and 63 of the
judgment that where a court directs that disciplinary proceedings be
concluded within a fixed time frame, such direction is binding and must be
strictly adhered to. It has been held that if, for any reason, the proceedings
cannot be concluded within the prescribed period, it is incumbent upon the
authority concerned to seek extension of time by moving an appropriate
application before the Court. The judgment further clarifies that even in
cases where the delinquent employee does not object to continuation of
proceedings beyond the stipulated period, the disciplinary authority is
nevertheless under a legal obligation to obtain prior leave of the Court before
proceeding further or passing any final order. The relevant paragraphs 62
and 63 are extracted hereunder:
"62. While affirming the aforesaid view of the Full Bench, we would like to provide clarification on
certain points not touched by such bench. First, in view of unseen institutional hurdles that can slow down
swift action, it may not always be possible for the disciplinary authority in each such case where a fixed
time has been stipulated by a tribunal/court to conclude the proceedings to apply and seek extension of
time before expiry of such time although there can be no gainsaying that applying and obtaining an
extension before expiry is eminently desirable. In exceptional cases, even after expiry of the stipulated
time, such an application can be moved; and, depending on the cause shown for inability or failure to
conclude the proceedings within the time stipulated and also for not applying for extension before expiry,
the tribunal/court may, in its discretion, allow or reject the prayer for extension. If the application is
rejected, the proceedings cannot be carried forward unless a superior court, reversing the order of
rejection, permits the disciplinary authority to so proceed. Secondly, if the delinquent employee objects to
continuation of proceedings beyond the time stipulated, the disciplinary authority without proceeding
further ought to apply for extension of time and may not go ahead till such time its prayer for extension is
granted on such application. Proceeding despite objection and without there being an extension could

WRIA No. 9421 of 2023
7
give rise to apprehensions of bias. Therefore, applying for extension upon halting the proceedings
awaiting order on the application would be an advisable course of action to balance the interests of both
the employer and the employee. Thirdly, even if the delinquent employee has not objected to continuation
of proceedings beyond the time stipulated by the tribunal/court but before the final order is passed in the
proceedings, the disciplinary authority would be bound to seek and obtain extension of time. This is for
the simple reason that the sanctity of the orders of tribunals/courts cannot be disrespected by errant
parties. The dignity of the judicial process would be seriously eroded and there would be nothing left of
the rule of law if orders of tribunals/courts, validly made, are disobeyed and the disobedience is
encouraged by being indulgent. Finally, we hasten to add that if a tribunal/court stipulates a fixed time by
which an enquiry or proceedings for disciplinary action ought to be concluded coupled with a rider that,
in default, the enquiry/proceedings will stand lapsed, the disciplinary authority in such a case would cease
to have the jurisdiction to proceed further unless, of course, citing genuine grounds, a recall of such
default clause is sought and obtained to proceed further in accordance with law.
63. We also hold that continuation of disciplinary proceedings beyond the time stipulated by a
tribunal/court could invite interdiction if no bona fide attempt is shown to have been made to seek an
extension of time. However, much would depend on the facts of each case and it may not be possible to lay
down a common formula applicable to each case. In an exceptional case, the tribunal/court would have
the discretion to overlook the laxity and make such direction as it deems fit in the circumstances."
19. In view of the aforesaid legal position, and considering that the judgment
in Special Appeal No. 123 of 2010, read with Writ Petition No. 4633 of 2007
(Ram Nath Gupta vs. State of U.P. and others) , had admittedly come to the
knowledge of the respondents, as is evident from the office memorandum
dated 20.12.2011, it was incumbent upon the respondents to conclude the
inquiry proceedings within the stipulated period of four months.
Alternatively, they ought to have sought extension of time from the Court in
accordance with law. The continuation of disciplinary proceedings beyond
the prescribed time frame, without obtaining leave of the Court, is clearly
impermissible. Furthermore, upon the death of the employee, the
disciplinary proceedings automatically stand abated. In this regard, this
Court in Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthy vs. New India Assurance Company
Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine All 14267 , has held as follows:
"18. These judgments of the Supreme Court consequently recognize that the delay in concluding a
departmental enquiry would not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings or render it invalid or non est. The
Court has to take into consideration and balance all the relevant factors. The Court must consider in that

WRIA No. 9421 of 2023
8
balance the need for preserving the sanctity of the administration. On the other hand, fairness towards the
delinquent employee requires that disciplinary proceedings should be concluded expeditiously. Hence, the
nature of the charge, its complexity and the reasons for that delay are all relevant considerations which
have to be borne in mind. Where the court has stipulated a period of time within which an enquiry has to
be concluded, the direction of the Court, particularly in the form of a mandamus, has to be duly observed.
It would not be open to the employer to willfully disregard the fixation of a time limit as a matter of no
consequence. However, the fixation of a period within which a disciplinary enquiry has to be concluded,
in an order of the Court, does not deprive the court of its jurisdiction to extend time in an appropriate
case having due regard to all the facts and circumstances which have been noted above. Whether the time
should be extended on a consideration of the relevant circumstances is for the court to determine."

20 . Similarly, in Rajeshwari Devi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 SCC
OnLine All 42, this Court, in paragraph 6, has categorically held that upon
the death of an employee, all his ties with worldly affairs, including the
relationship of employment, come to an end. It has been observed that no
punitive order can be passed against a deceased employee, as the imposition
of punishment under the applicable service rules presupposes the existence
of a living employee. Thus, the employer-employee relationship ceases
immediately upon the death of the employee. The relevant paragraph 6 is
extracted 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. All the punishments contemplated under the
rules are such which can be imposed on a person who is still continuing to be an employee. Sri Anil
Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Nagar Nigam, on repeated query did not controvert the
fact that as soon as an employee dies, his relationship of employer and employee comes to an end. This
would automatically result in cessation of proceedings including departmental proceedings pending
against him."
21. In Pushpa Devi vs. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine All 3264 , this
Court has reiterated the settled legal position that disciplinary proceedings
cannot be continued against a deceased employee. The relevant paragraph of
the said judgment is extracted hereunder:

WRIA No. 9421 of 2023
9
"25. So far as, present case is concerned, inquiry proceeding was initiated, charge sheet was issued, but
before submission of reply of the charge sheet, husband of petitioner died. Inquiry officer came to the
conclusion that, as husband of petitioner (employee) died during the pendency of inquiry proceeding,
therefore, it is required on the part of disciplinary authority to drop the disciplinary proceeding.
Thereafter, no further order has been passed upon the inquiry proceeding. Only after filing of writ petition
by the petitioner, order was passed to decide the representation of petitioner dated 21.12.2021, upon
which order of recovery dated 27.05.2022 has been passed for recovery of amount of Rs. 10,14,594/-. In
fact, it is nothing, but re-initiation of earlier inquiry, which has not been completed in light of
recommendation made by the inquiry committee."
22. Thus, in light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, the legal position
stands crystallized that where a delinquent employee dies during the
pendency of disciplinary proceedings, such proceedings cannot be continued
thereafter and are liable to be treated as having abated. Upon the demise of
the employee, the relationship between the employer and the employee
ceases to exist, and consequently, no further action in the nature of
disciplinary proceedings can be sustained in the eyes of law.
23. Insofar as the contention advanced by learned counsel for the State that
in the absence of the service book and GPF passbook of the petitioner’s late
husband, the employer cannot be compelled to extend service benefits is
concerned, the same is devoid of merit. In Satya Prakash Srivastava vs.
State of U.P. (supra) , it has been categorically held that the responsibility for
proper maintenance, safe custody, and upkeep of service records lies
squarely upon the concerned department and not upon the employee. In the
event such records are found to be missing or misplaced, the burden lies
upon the department to reconstruct or verify the service particulars of the
employee from available sources. The department cannot be permitted to
derive advantage from its own lapse, nor can such deficiency be used as a
ground to deny legitimate service benefits to an employee or his legal heirs.
The relevant extract from the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
"11. It is trite that the responsibility of safe keeping and upkeep of service records of an employee is upon
the department itself and not the employee and in case such service records are missing or misplaced,
onus is upon the department itself to complete such service details of an employee. In the absence of any
such service records, the department cannot take benefit of such an omission nor such burden can be
shifted upon the employee so as to deny him benefits to which he is justifiably expected."

WRIA No. 9421 of 2023
10

Conclusion and Directions
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the undisputed factual matrix of
the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled
to the release of all consequential service benefits of her late husband.
Accordingly, the opposite parties are directed to ensure the payment of all
retiral dues, including gratuity, General Provident Fund (GPF), and family
pension, in respect of late Ram Nath Gupta, who died in harness on
02.12.2016 while serving as Pharmacist (Homeopathy) at Government
Homeopathic Hospital, Dhanaupur, Sultanpur. The aforesaid amounts shall
be released within a period of three months from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order, along with simple interest at the rate of 7% per
annum, calculated from the date on which the petitioner became entitled to
such benefits, i.e., 21.12.2016, being the date on which the application for
release of post-retiral dues was submitted.
25. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed .
(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)
April 3, 2026
R.C.
Digitally signed by :-
RAM CHANDER YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench