Departmental proceedings initiated against a retired government servant are illegal and unsustainable if the mandatory prior sanction of the Governor, as required under Rule 9(2)(b) of the Pension Rules, is not obtained.

Order on Board

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:–

“10.1 The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record in respect of departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner.

10.2 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the charge-sheet dated 25/08/2021 issued by the respondent.

10.3 Any other relief, which Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the Petitioner in the interest of justice.

10.4 Cost of the Petition be also awarded.”

2. Facts in brief are that at the relevant time in the year 2015, the petitioner was posted as an Additional Collector, District Dhamtari. He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2017. After retirement, an article of charge was issued on 21.06.2018 making allegations that, while exercising powers of the First Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, he directed the authority concerned to provide documents free of cost. Consequently, departmental enquiry was contemplated and an amended article of charge was issued on 25.08.2021 wherein similar allegations were reproduced. It is pleaded that the departmental enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner after retirement without obtaining prior permission or sanction of the Hon’ble Governor and the same is in contravention of the provisions of Rule 9(2)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. (for short, Pension Rules, 1976).

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner after retirement on 25.08.2021 and no prior sanction was accorded by the Hon’ble Governor, which is an essential requirement for initiating departmental enquiry against a retired government servant. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Vikram Singh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh & ors. (WPS No.6178 of 2019, dt. 28.06.2022). He has also placed reliance on the judgment passed in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh v. T.N. Verma [2001 (1) M.P.L.J]. He would argue that after retirement, the relationship of employer and employee comes to an end and, therefore, the authorities had no jurisdiction to initiate departmental enquiry.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that the petitioner committed certain misconduct while posted as an first appellate authority under the Right to Information Act and, therefore, immediately after retirement, an article of charge was issued on 21.06.2018. The article of charge was issued in the name of the Governor. He would further contend that the subsequent charge-sheet issued on 25.08.2021 was in continuation of the earlier article of charge and, therefore, it cannot be said that the departmental enquiry was initiated after expiry of the limitation prescribed under Rule 9(2)(b) of the Pension Rules, 1976. He would further argue that a notification dated 02.03.2017 was issued by the State Government, according to which sanction from the Hon’ble Governor under Rule 9(2)(b) of the Rules, 1976 is not necessary, as such sanction can be granted by the Chief Minister of the State. He would contend that the sanction required under Rule 9(2)(b) of the Rules, 1976 has been granted