SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Chh) 230

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
P. Sam Koshy, J.
B. M. Yagik, S/o Late Shri Ghasilal Yagik - Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, S/o through: Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) - Respondent
Writ Petition (Service) No. 505 OF 2018
Decided On : 04-05-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Surya Kawakar Dangi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Dy. Govt. Advocate, Mr. Avinash Singh, Panel Lawyer.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Public Works Department - Retirement - Releasing of anticipatory pension - Right of governor to withhold or withdraw pension - Petitioner was working under the Respondent - Public Works Department as an Assistant Engineer and he stood retired from service with effect - Even on date of retirement or on earlier occasion, there was no charge-sheet issued or show-cause-notice issued or was pending consideration - Neither was there any order of recovery nor any proceeding pending against Petitioner in respect of the pecuniary loss caused to Respondents - Petitioner was not paid dues for a considerable period of time, except for releasing of anticipatory pension has led to filing of present Writ Petition – Held, Departmental proceedings are deemed to be proceeding under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976, even after retirement of original respondent. The proviso of sub-rule (2) (a) of Rule 9 of the Rules - makes it amply clear that where departmental proceedings are instituted by Authority subordinate to the Governor, that Authority shall submit a report regarding its findings to the Governor - Conservator of Forest having initiated the departmental proceedings, before the retirement of the original respondent, was only entitled to continue and complete the same and submit a report to the Governor regarding his findings in the departmental proceedings, but was not entitled to pass a final order for recovery of loss original respondent - Tribunal was right in quashing the order - departmental enquiry and departmental proceeding could not be concluded during his service tenure and concerned Government servant has retired from service, the only course available to respondent No.2 was to submit report to Governor after conclusion of enquiry along with his finding for appropriate order which he has admittedly, not done and straightway has passed order for recovery teeth of proviso to Rule 9 (1) of the Rules, 1976 - Legal position as it stands, impugned Order been issued only by Respondent No.2 and being issued without the permission or Order passed by Governor of State, same is apparently bad in law, illegal and therefore deserves to be and is accordingly set aside - Respondents are directed to ensure that entire admissible dues payable to Petitioner be released to him forthwith within a period of 60 days from date of receipt of copy of this Order - Writ Petition stands allowed and disposed of.

ORDER :

1. The substantive challenge in the present Writ Petition is to Annexure P-10, dated 17.10.2016, whereby the Respondents have issued an order of recovery against the Petitioner to the tune of Rs.2,67,750/-.

2. The challenge primarily is on the ground that the impugned Order (Annexure P-10) is per se in violation of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 which do not empower the Disciplinary Authority to issue recovery orders after the retirement of the government employee.

3. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present Writ Petition are that the Petitioner was working under the Respondent - Public Works Department as an Assistant Engineer and he stood retired from service with effect from 31.12.2009. That, even on the date of retirement or on earlier occasion, there was no charge-sheet issued or show-cause-notice issued or was pending consideration. Neither was there any order of recovery nor any proceeding pending against the Petitioner in respect of the pecuniary loss caused to the Respondents. The Petitioner was not paid the retiral dues for a considerable period of time, except for the releasing of anticipatory pension of 90%. This has led to the filing of the present Writ Petition.

4. Meanwhile, the Respondents have cleared the other retiral dues payable to the Petitioner, like - amount payable under the GIS, family fund, leave encashment, GPF etc. Thus, only the final settlement of the pension and the unpaid gratuity stands to be released by the Respondents.

5. After seven years of the retirement of the Petitioner, the impugned Order (Annexure P-10) has been passed issuing the order of recovery against the Petitioner to the tune of Rs.2,67,750/-. The said recovery is said to be in respect of an alleged inferior quality of work of the Gidhwa Bamhani-Buchatola road constructed, while the Petitioner was posted at Khairagarh Division (District Rajnandgaon) in the year 2003. The said order of recovery has been issued by the Respondent No.2, the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Works Department.

6. It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the Rule position. For ready reference, Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 is reproduced herein under :-

    “9. Right of governor to withhold or withdraw pension.-- (1) The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government if, any departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement:

Provided that the State Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed:

Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below the minimum pension as determined by the Government from time to time.

(2) (a) The departmental proceedings, if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced, in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service:

Provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to the Governor, that authority shall submit a report regarding its findings to the Governor.

(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment:--

(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor;

(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and

(iii) sha

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top