Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 27409
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
Nandkishor Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam – Respondent
Writ Petition (Service) No. 6010 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ashutosh Mishra
For the Respondents: AS Kachwaha, Sharad Mishra
Departmental proceedings against an employee lapse upon superannuation unless the applicable service rules contain a specific provision authorizing their continuation after retirement.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Departmental Proceedings - Continuation after superannuation - Absence of express provision in service rules - Disciplinary proceedings cannot be continued after an employee retires unless the applicable rules specifically authorize such action. (Para 7, 8)
(B) Legal Authority - Jurisdiction - Retirement - Once an employee ceases to be in service, the departmental enquiry lapses in the absence of a statutory enabling provision. (Para 7.1, 7.2, 7.3)
Issues: Whether the respondent-Nigam has the power to continue departmental proceedings against the petitioner after his superannuation without an express provision in the applicable service rules/regulations.
Order on Board
1. The short question involved in this petition is whether the respondent-Nigam has power to continue the departmental proceedings against the petitioner after his superannuation without there being any express provision in the applicable service rules/regulation.
2. Facts of the case, in short, is that the petitioner was working as Divisional Manager with the respondent- Nigam and he was subjected to charge-sheet on 24.07.2019 (Annexure-P/01), however, on 31.07.2019, on attaining the age of superannuation, he stood retired. Thereafter, the petitioner filed this writ petition on 05.08.2019 with the plea that in the Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Employees Service Regulation, 1984 (for short the “Regulation of 1984”) there is no provision for continuation of department enquiry after superannuation, therefore, the department proceedings cannot be continued and same is liable to be quashed.
3. This Court vide order dated 13.08.2019 stayed the effect and operation of the charge-sheet dated 24.07.2019 and, thereafter, vide order dated 11.08.2026 further directed the parties to file affidavits clearly indicating whether the applicable rules provide for continuation of department enquiry after superannuation or not. In compliance thereof, the respondents have filed affidavit on 20.08.2026, in which, no rule has been pointed out enabling the department to continue the departmental enquiry after superannuation, indeed, only definition of the employee is referred under Rule 136 .
4. Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner’s services are governed by the Regulation of 1984, which is completely silent about continuation of the department enquiry after superannuation of an employee. As such, there is no authority or jurisdiction to the respondent-authority for continuation of the departmental enquiry after superannuation of the petitioner, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and prays for dismissal of this petition.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection.
7. True it is that the services of the petitioner was governed by the Regulation of 1984, in which, there is no express provision authorizing the respondents-authorities for continuation of the departmental enquiry after superannuation of the petitioner. Thus, in absence of provision in this regard, in service rules, relevant judgments on this issue may be noticed usefully herein as issue in question has been considered by the Supreme Court on number of occasions. Following decisions may be noticed herein usefully:-
7.1 In a Constitution Bench judgment in the matter of S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab1AIR 1964 SC 72, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that there has to be a specific provision under the law to take action against the person who has ceased to be in service.
7.2 As back as, in the matter of State Bank of India v. A.N. Gupta and others 2(1997) 8 SCC 60, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have categorically held that once an employee ceased to be in the service of the bank, continuation of disciplinary proceedings was not permissible unless there was a specific provision to this effect in the relevant rules.
7.3 Thereafter, in the matter of Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and others 3(1999) 3 SCC 666 it has been held by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court that in the absence of specific provision in the relevant rules applicable to the public servant, the respondent- Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral benefits of the appellant and held as under:-
“6. It will be noticed from the abovesaid regulations that no specific provision was made for deducting any amount from the provident
