Court rules that punishment imposed during employee's lifetime remains valid despite death during appeal; negligence in safeguarding government stock warrants pay scale reduction
In a significant judgment delivered on September 2, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging disciplinary proceedings against the late Shri M.S. Cheema, a former Branch Officer of Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation (Markfed). The court upheld the punishment of reduction by two stages in the time scale of pay imposed on Shri Cheema for negligence related to shortage of paddy stocks for the crop year 1997-98.
The petitioner, Shri Cheema's son, had sought quashing of the disciplinary order dated July 6, 2005, and subsequent appellate and revisional orders, claiming that the enquiry failed to prove any misappropriation or embezzlement by his father. The petitioner argued that since the paddy stocks were in joint custody with a rice miller, who was primarily liable and against whom criminal and arbitration proceedings were initiated, the punishment against his father was unwarranted. Moreover, he contended that his father's death in 2009 during the pendency of appeal should have rendered the disciplinary proceedings and punishment void as per an internal resolution dated September 29, 1989.
The High Court analyzed the facts and legal submissions, emphasizing that the disciplinary enquiry did not find any misappropriation but did establish negligence on the part of Shri Cheema in safeguarding government paddy stocks, which had enabled unauthorized conversion by the miller. The court held that negligence leading to loss is sufficient ground for disciplinary action and that the reduction in pay scale as a penalty was not disproportionate, especially given the substantial value of the shortage (approximately Rs. 26 lakhs).
Crucially, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Bitola Devi v. Union of India (2019), which clarified that disciplinary punishment imposed during an employee's lifetime does not become non-existent merely because the employee dies during the pendency of an appeal. The Court noted that the resolution dated September 29, 1989, distinguished between cases where disciplinary proceedings are pending at the time of death and those where punishment orders have already been passed. Since the punishment was imposed well before Shri Cheema's death, the disciplinary order and recovery process remained valid and could be pursued against the employee's dues or through other legal means.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the challenge to the disciplinary and appellate orders and upheld the disciplinary authority's decision to reduce Shri Cheema's pay scale for retirement benefits calculation. This ruling reinforces that negligence in official duties causing loss to public property attracts disciplinary consequences, and such punishment retains its validity even posthumously if imposed during the employee's lifetime.
Bottom Line:
Disciplinary proceedings and punishment imposed during the lifetime of an employee remain valid even after the employee's subsequent death during the pendency of an appeal.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Sections 379, 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Article 226 of the Constitution of India
