1 2025:CGHC:49285 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1691 of 2025  Devidas Rajurkar S/o Lt. S.R. Rajurkar Aged About 62 Years R/o 56/4 Radhika Nagar Supela, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, Through Secretary, Head Office Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, Head Office Sector-4, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. Karmik Prabandhak Chhattisgarh Ware Housing Corporation Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Agnihotri, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey judgment On Board 25-09-2025 1) Heard. 2) This petition has been filed by the petitioner against issuance of show cause notice dated 10.01.2025 (Annexure P/1) and order Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.09.26 18:16:26 +0530 2 dated 24.01.2025 (Annexure P/2) issued by respondent No. 2. The petitioner has also sought relief for release of retiral dues. 3) The petitioner was working on the post of Technical Assistant under respondents. He retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2024. He was not paid retiral dues, therefore he filed writ petition [WPS/526/2025], which was disposed vide order dated 21.01.2025 directing respondents to consider the claim of petitioner in accordance with law. Thereafter, petitioner received show-cause notice issued by respondent No. 2 to the effect that due to negligence on the part of petitioner between 02.02.2002 to 18.02.2005, 13.07.2010 to 16.10.2018, 31.08.2010 to 29.11.2014 and 18.05.2022 to 20.03.2023, the Corporation suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 51,07,594/-. 4) Petitioner filed reply to the show notice on 20.01.2025 and denied the allegations. Corporation made payment of Rs.3,77,019/- against retiral dues and adjusted Rs. 51,09,589/- and 2,33,722/-. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that services of petitioner are governed by Chhattisgarh Civil Services(Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1966 (for short 'the CCA Rules, 1966') and order of recovery is minor penalty and same has been inflicted without holding departmental inquiry. He further submits that as petitioner stood superannuated from services on 30.11.2024, departmental inquiry cannot be proceeded against him and there is no such provision in CCA Rules, 1966. 3 6) On the other hand, learned counsel for the Corporation submits that petitioner has caused heavy financial loss to the Corporation and the Corporation has right to recover the amount of loss caused by petitioner, even after retirement. He further submits that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 7) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8) Admittedly, no departmental proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner for his misconduct, rather a show-cause notice has been served after retirement wherein recovery has been contemplated. 9) In the matter of S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 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. In the present case, action has been proposed against petitioner after retirement and there is no specific provision in the CCA Rules, 1966 to initiate inquiry after retirement. 10) In the matter of Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and others, (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/ regulations, the Corporation cannot make any reduction in the retiral benefits. Relevant paras 6 and 7 are reproduced herein below:- 4 “6. It will be noticed from the abovesaid regulations that no specific provision was made for deducting any amount from the provident fund consequent to any misconduct determined in the departmental enquiry nor was any provision made for continuance of the departmental enquiry after superannuation. 7. In view of the absence of such a provision in the abovesaid regulations, it must be held that the Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral benefits of the appellant. There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the appellant and nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. Once the appellant had retired from service on 30-6-1995, there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement.” 11) Applying the law laid-down by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases to the factual matrix of the present case, it is quite vivid that CCA Rules are applicable to the petitioner. There is no express provision incorporated in the said Rules authorizing the Corporation to initiate the disciplinary proceedings after superannuation of an employee. 12) The inevitable consequence of absence of such enabling provision in the CCA Rules would be that the Corporation cannot initiate disciplinary proceeding after superannuation of petitioner. As a result, the show-cause notice dated 10.01.2025 issued by respondent No. 2 is hereby set aside. 5 13) Since the show-cause notice has already been set aside by this Court, therefore, the authorities are directed to release and disburse the retiral dues payable to the petitioner. This exercise shall be concluded by respondent authorities preferably, within a period of three months from the receipt of copy of this order. 14) Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. 15) No order as to costs. Sd./- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a