1 / 4 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1941 of 2025 M. R. Sahu S/o Late Shri Mayaram Sahu Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Parsada, Tehsil Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh,. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Chief Conservator, Forest And Head Of Department, Aranya Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Additional Chief Secretary Forest And Head Of Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur 3 - Principal Chief Conservator Forest (Wildlife) Department, Aranya Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Conservator Forest (Wildlife) Department, Raja Tala, Baloda Bazar Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhatisgarh. 5 - Deputy Director Sitanadi Nagri, Udanti Sitanadi Tiger Reserve Gariyabnad District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Apoorva Ghore, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Suyash Dhar Badgaiya, Advocate HON'BLE SHRI PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, JUDGE ORDER ON BOARD 29.04.2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. “1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders and may kindly direct to reconsider the case of petitioner and deducted amount from April 2024 December 2024 may kindly be 2 / 4 directed to be refunded with applicable interest. 2. That, the action on the part of deputy director respondent no. 5 whereby the amount has been deducted from monthly salary of petitioner may also kindly be held to be illegal and arbitrary. 3. That, the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to consider the case of petitioner for grant of part payment of GPF amount within the stipulated period. 4. That, any other relief/reliefs Hon'ble court may deem fit in interest of justice.” 2. At the outset, counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner at the time of filing writ petition had prayed for primarily two reliefs. The second relief prayed for in Para 10.3 is for grant of part payment of GPF amount within the stipulated period. She submits that during pendency of this writ petition, said relief No. 10.3 has been granted to the petitioner by respondents and therefore she is making submission with regard to the relief prayed for in Para 10.1 and 10.2. It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is at present working on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest/ Assistant Director, Sitanadi Udanti Sitanadi, Tiger Reserve Gariyaband. She contended that petitioner was given office note informing him about deduction of his monthly salary for the period from April 2024 to December, 2024. It is further contention of counsel for the petitioner though according to the pleadings made in the reply some show cause notice was issued to the petitioner earlier and in some of the notice it is also mentioned that the departmental proceedings will be initiated, however, till date no departmental enquiry is initiated, no punishment in the due enquiry has been imposed and therefore, unless and until there is an order for recovery of any amount from the petitioner following due process of 3 / 4 law or any order issued by the competent authority in this regard, the respondent authorities have erred in deducting the amount from the salary of the petitioner / withholding of the salary. It is also contended that no departmental enquiry is pending against the petitioner nor any charge memo is issued to him and therefore, withholding of part of the salary of any month in between the period as mentioned above or withholding the entire salary of a particular month is arbitrary, illegal and violative to principles of natural justice. 3. Learned counsel for the State would vehemently oppose the submission of counsel for petitioner and would submit that from the pleadings made in the reply as also the documents filed in support thereof, it is appearing that several letters / memos have been issued to petitioner mentioning that he is involved in commission of different irregularities. Petitioner had not submitted reply to all the notices, satisfying the authorities and therefore, it appears that salary has been withheld. He however do not dispute the submission of counsel for the petitioner that as on date no charge memo has been issued or any departmental enquiry is pending against him. He submits that recommendation for initiation of departmental enquiry proceedings is made by the Deputy Director. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Grievance of the petitioner is of withholding part of the salary of the months in between April 2024 to December, 2024 or have withheld the entire salary of the aforementioned period. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is not served with charge memo leveling any allegation of financial irregularities nor any other enquiry is pending against him. When a government servant is working in the working day 4 / 4 till the entire working hours then said employee is entitled for the salary / wages until and unless some order is passed for withholding of full or part of the salary of an employee. As counsel for the State have not disputed the submission that no enquiry is pending nor any charge memo is issued to petitioner, I am of the view that withholding of salary of an employee working with the respondent department, without any order of the competent authority in this regard is arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 6. For the foregoing discussion, this writ petition is allowed in part. Respective respondents are directed to release the withheld salary for the month from April, 2024 till December 2024, if there is no other legal impediment for releasing the salary of the petitioner as on date. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Saurabh JUDGE