Departmental inquiry abates upon the death of the employee, necessitating the release of all admissible retiral benefits.

The original applicant, Smt. Kaniz Bano Khan, a railway employee, filed an Original Application (O.A.) challenging a Charge Memo dated 26.10.2022 and subsequent orders dated 12.12.2022, 02.02.2023, and 17.02.2023

During the pendency of the O.A., the Tribunal stayed the operation of the impugned charge memorandum

While the stay was in effect, the original applicant passed away. Her legal heir (son) moved M.A. No. 1478/2026 for substitution to continue the proceedings

The primary grievance was that the respondents had withheld the applicant's retiral/settlement benefits on account of the pending disciplinary proceedings

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated via the charge memorandum dated 26.10.2022 abate upon the death of the delinquent employee during the pendency of the litigation

2. Whether the respondents are liable to release the withheld retiral benefits to the legal heirs following the death of the employee

The Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

The matter involved the application of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, and Rule 9 of the Railway Pension Rules

The core legal principle applied is that departmental inquiries are personal in nature and automatically abate (terminate) upon the death of the charged employee, as a deceased person cannot defend themselves or be punished

The Tribunal observed that the impugned charge memorandum had been stayed by a previous order of the Bench. Both parties conceded that since the original applicant had expired during the subsistence of the stay, the departmental inquiry could no longer proceed

The Tribunal reasoned that the abatement of the charge memorandum removed the legal basis upon which the respondents had withheld the retiral benefits

Consequently, the challenge to the charge memo became infructuous, but the prayer for the release of settlement dues remained a valid claim for the legal heirs

The O.A. was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to release all admissible retiral benefits of the original applicant to the legal heirs within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order

No order was made as to costs