Employee's Death During Appeal Does Not Nullify Disciplinary Punishment: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court on 2 September held that an employee's death during the pendency of a departmental appeal does not automatically nullify a disciplinary punishment imposed during his lifetime.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil dismissed a writ petition filed by Sukhjinder Singh, son of former Punjab State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. (Markfed) Branch Officer M.S. Cheema, challenging the reduction of his father's pay by two stages for calculating retiral dues over negligence relating to a shortage of paddy stocks worth about Rs. 26 lakh. The Bench held:

“The principle emerging from the aforesaid decision is that where the disciplinary enquiry has already culminated and a punishment has been imposed during the lifetime of the employee, the subsequent death of the employee during pendency of an appeal does not automatically nullify the punishment already imposed.”

The dispute concerned a shortage of paddy stocks from the 1997-98 crop year stored at N.G.T. Rice Mill, Banur. Cheema, who served as a Branch Officer with Markfed, retired on 31 December 2004.

An enquiry report dated 3 March 2003 found negligence by the charged officials in safeguarding the stocks. On 6 July 2005, Markfed reduced Cheema by two stages in the time scale of pay for calculating his retiral dues. The recovery relating to stocks under joint custody was made conditional on Markfed failing to recover the loss from the miller through arbitration or other legal proceedings.

Markfed separately proceeded against the rice miller. An arbitration award dated 2 April 2003 directed payment of Rs. 41,04,665.70 with interest in Markfed's favour. The District Judge, however, set aside the award on 5 February 2013 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Markfed thereafter determined its claim at Rs. 1.68 crore with interest on 31 March 2013 and filed a civil recovery suit seeking Rs. 1.92 crore with future interest against the miller.

Cheema died on 26 September 2009 while his departmental appeal was pending. His son subsequently approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the disciplinary order dated 6 July 2005, appellate order dated 20 July 2010 and revisional order dated 16 August 2012, and seeking release of pensionary benefits.

Singh argued that the enquiry had not established misappropriation or embezzlement and had found only negligence. He also contended that Markfed had treated the miller as primarily liable by initiating criminal, arbitration and recovery proceedings, and that Cheema's death during the pendency of the appeal meant that the proceedings could not continue to the prejudice of his estate.

Markfed, on the other hand, argued that the punishment had been imposed during Cheema's lifetime and his subsequent death could not invalidate it.

The High Court found that while misappropriation had not been proved, the enquiry established negligence which enabled the miller to unauthorisedly convert the paddy. It held that failure to prove misappropriation did not erase the finding of negligence or bar disciplinary action.

It also found that the penalty was not wholly disproportionate, considering the substantial shortage and Cheema's failure to adequately safeguard the stocks.

Noting that the punishment was imposed on 6 July 2005, nearly four years before Cheema's death, the Bench held that his death while the appeal remained pending did not extinguish the disciplinary order.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the challenge to the disciplinary, appellate and revisional orders.

Appearances for petitioner (Sukhjinder Singh): Advocate Udayveer Singh Brar.

Appearances for respondent No. 1 (Punjab State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd./Markfed): Advocate Animesh Sharma.

Appearances For State of Punjab: Additional Advocate General, TPS Walia.