SHARMA, J. - (1.) PRAYER of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is as under:- (i) to quash the order dated July 6, 2002 and the order dated June 28, 2002 to the extent of denying payments to the petitioner; (ii) to direct the respondent to release the amount of difference of salary, allowance, encashment of PL, Gratuity (Rs. 4,02,008) and other post retrial benefits.
(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts depict that late husband of the petitioner Shri Raj Kumar Mishra entered in the service of respondent Corporation on July 1, 1974 and continued to work till his death i. e. May 8, 2002. The husband of petitioner working as Senior Assistant was transferred and posted in Carpet Cell in Head Officer, Jaipur vide order dated May 27, 2000. The husband of petitioner was served with the order dated June 9, 2000 whereby the enquiry was contemplated against him and he was placed under suspension. The memorandum dated June 22, 2000 along with the charge sheet was served on him. In respect of same charges 5-6 other employees were also charge sheeted. The husband of the petitioner submitted reply to charges on March 14, 2001. On completion of the enquiry the enquiry report was submitted on April 16, 2001. On May 8, 2002 the husband of the petitioner expired due to heart failure while he had gone to Bangalore. After the death of husband of petitioner the respondent sought an explanation from the State Government about continuation of the enquiry against the husband of the petitioner. The Government sent letter dated June 18, 2002 informing that Bureau of Public Enterprises has not issued any direction in particular. The Circular dated March 16, 1998, issued by Department of Personnel, State of Rajasthan provides that if departmental enquiry is pending against an employee at the time of his death, the same should be put to an end immediately, and in case it is joint enquiry, the enquiry may be conducted and continued against other employees except the deceased employee. The order dated June 28, 2002 came to be passed wherein it was clearly mentioned that although enquiry was completed against the deceased employee and the charges were found proved, but he could not be served the notice under Article 311 and he could not be since heard therefore no order could be passed against him. It was, however, observed that successor of late Mishra will not be paid any of the claim of his service period except those permissible and payable under rule of the Corporation. The respondent vide order dated July 6, 2002 made certain recoveries from the amount of encashment of PL and Gratuity from the account of husband of the petitioner, inspite of the fact that the enquiry against husband of the petitioner was abated and and in view of the circular dated March 16, 1998 and order dated June 28, 2002 no recovery was to be made. Hence the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition challenging the recovery and claiming retrial benefits. The respondent in the return to the writ petition averred that the husband of the petitioner was placed under suspension w. e. f. June 9, 2000. The enquiry was initiated since he along with other employees caused huge loss to the Corporation. Since the enquiry was completed prior to the death of late Mishra and he was found guilty of the charges the respondent had every right to effect the recoveries. The petitioner in the rejoinder reiterated the averments of the writ petition. I have heard the rival submissions and scanned the material on record as well as the case law cited in support of contention. A look at the order dated June 28, 2002 of the respondent demonstrates that the disciplinary action against late Mishra stood abated without any verdict for or against him. it was however inducted in the order that late Mishra's successor will not be paid any of the claims of late Mishra's service period, except those permissible and payable under rule of the Corporation's service and law. it was clarified that no remaining amount will be paid of his suspension period. Likewise his successor will not claim any appointment on compassionate ground in the Corporation's service. Late Mishra's successor will not be subjected to the recovery of losses caused to the coffers of the Corporation, as had been alleged against late Mishra and proved in the enquiry report, because the disciplinary proceedings have been abated against him. Therefore the office order was passed on July 6, 2004, wherein it was stated that difference of the salary and other retrial benefits such as gratuity, leave encashment etc. to be available on retirement/termination of late Mishra shall be adjusted against the shortage debited to his personal account and shall be credited to the Corporation account. A decision was taken to debit Rs. 402008/- from the individual account of late Mishra of the account of the respondent Corporation. It is evident form the order dated June 28, 2002 that the successor of late Mishra including the petitioner were not provided the opportunity of hearing before issuing the direction against them that they will not be paid any of the claim of service of late Mishra and they will not claim any appointment on compassionate ground in the service of Corporation. It is also apparent that while passing the order dated July 6, 2002 no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and the amount shown in the order was ordered to be debited from the individual account of late Mishra to the account of Corporation. Both these orders lack fairness and are against the principles of natural justice. The opportunity to be heard must be tailored to the capacities and circumstances of those who are to be heard. The accepted methodology of administrative work should always be tuned with the concept of fairness and not dehors the same. The law courts should be able to protect the individual from the administrative ipse-dixit. The Draconian concept of law is that administrative act should be in any manner fair and reasonable. The protection of the audi alteram partem rule is prima facie and one who is entitled should be provided the opportunity of oral hearing. Since no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing the orders dated June 28, 2002 and July 6, 2002, both these orders so far they affect the right of the petitioner are arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) FOR these reasons, I allow the writ petition and quash the orders dated June 28, 2002 and July 6, 2002, so far these orders affect the rights of the petitioner. I direct the respondent to release the amount of difference of salary, allowance, encashment of PL, Gratuity and other post retrial benefits. The respondent shall ensure the compliance of this order within sixty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There There shall be no order as to costs. .;