1 2025:CGHC:18267-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 267 of 2025 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Forest and Climate Change Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Aranya Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 1) 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Vanbal Pramukh Chhattisgarh Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 2) 3. The Additional Chief Conservator of Forest Chhattisgarh Aranya Bhawan, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 3) 4. Chief Conservator of Forest Raipur Circle, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 4) 5. Divisional Forest OfÏcer Gariyaband Division District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 5) ... Appellant(s) versus Gajanand Singh Thakur S/o Late Shri Anjor Singh Thakur Aged About 64 Years Occupation Retired Forest Ranger, Regular Range Dhawalpur, Forest Division Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh R/o Village And Post Nagri, Junglepara, Nagri, Tehsil Nagri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.04.24 15:26:01 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 23 .04.2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the appellants as well as Mr. Himanshu Pandey, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufÏcient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is allowed and delay of 405 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellants/State against the order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 42 of 2024 (Gajanand Singh Thakur vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed off the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner herein. 5. Learned State counsel submits that the case of the respondent herein before the learned Single Judge was that while working as Ranger, 3 he stood retired from service on 30.06.2017 and after passage of two years of retirement, a charge-sheet dated 02.07.2019 was served upon him with allegations about irregularities while posting as Range OfÏcer at Navagarh Forest Division Gariyaband. The allegation was that the work was carried out by the same person in two different places at the same time, further allegation was that wrong entries pertaining to the work period was made in the voucher bearing No. 496 dated 30.03.2016 and it was directed to submit the reply within a period of 15 days. When the documents as demanded by him were not supplied to him, thereafter, he filed writ petition bearing WPS No. 10723 of 2019 before this Court which was disposed off vide order dated 19.12.2019 with a direction to the respondent authorities therein to supply the entire set of documents which are relied upon the charge-sheet as early as possible and in compliance of the order of the Court, he made representation dated 21.12.2019, but no heed was paid by the authorities and no documents as demanded by him were ever supplied to him. 6. 6. It is further submitted by the learned State counsel that the respondent/writ petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet on 10.02.2020 in which it was stated that he took additional charge as Range OfÏcer at Gariyaband Range from 01.03.2016 to 12.05.2016 whereas the alleged work during which irregularities were committed, was done before 01.03.2016. It was further submitted that it was the duty of Spot Incharge as well as Range Assistant to monitor the work done by the labourers and in the entire process nowhere the Range OfÏcer was directly involved. In the report dated 30.11.2017, nowhere it is mentioned that there was loss to the government, the vouchers were verified by Sub Divisional Forest 4 OfÏcer and the same was forwarded to Assistant Range OfÏcer for the purpose of payment. Further, case of the respondent/writ petitioner was that after submitting the opinion by the Sub Divisional OfÏcer, Forest, he further submitted additional reply to the document dated 09.07.2020 wherein he stated that nowhere in the charge-sheet it was alleged that there is total wrongful loss of Rs. 1,35,720/- to the government, out of which his share is Rs. 47,502/-, further no document is provided to him in support of the alleged claim made by the appellant authorities and hence, no departmental inquiry as well as amount can be recovered from him. He again submitted representation dated 17.11.2020 and requested to provide the entire documents in support of his claim, however, no response was received from the authorities and moreover, the order dated 25.05.2021 was issued wherein the Inquiry OfÏcer was appointed. It was further case of the respondent/writ petitioner that the departmental enquiry was concluded without following the principle of audi alterm parte and the impugned order dated 31.10.2023 wherein he is held guilty for the loss of Rs. 50,826.5/- was passed holding recovery of Rs. 17,789/- from him in 5 installments from the amount of relief paid on pension which is illegal and contrary to law as before making recovery from his pension, no due permission from the Governor was not ever obtained by the authorities which is mandatory as per Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short, ‘Rules of 1976’) and hence, the recovery is illegal and contrary to law. The respondent/writ petitioner placed reliance in support of his case on the order/judgment dated 27.07.2017 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 3981 of 2004 (Ram Nath Sonkar vs. State Government of Chhattisgarh & 5 Ors). 7. Learned State counsel further contended that without affording opportunity for filing of return on behalf of the State, the said writ petition was finally heard by the learned Single Judge and it was observed that the respondent/writ petitioner stood retired from the service on 30.06.2017 and on that date, neither any Departmental Enquiry was pending nor any order of recovery passed against the respondent/writ petitioner whereas the order of punishment / recovery passed against the respondent/writ petitioner after his retirement without complying provision of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976, which is not permissible, with the aforesaid observation, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition vide order dated 08.01.2024 and the order of recovery dated 31.10.2023 thereby holding him liable for loss of Rs. 50,826.5/- for which order of recovery of Rs. 17,789/- was passed against him, has been quashed. He also contended that it is admitted fact that the respondent/writ petitioner herein stood retired from service on 30.06.2017 upon attaining the age of superannuation and from a retired employee, for initiation of departmental enquiry as well as recovery of amount if any, the permission/approval from the competent authority is mandatorily required which the appellants have obtained from the competent authority. He would submit that the right to withhold the pensionary benefit of a retired employee has been vested with the coordination of the Hon'ble Chief Minister and this fact can be ascertained from the circular dated 02.03.2017 and copy of which is being filed herewith as Annexure A/2. It is submitted that since approval from the coordination of the Hon'ble Chief Minister is essential and required, therefore, the case of the respondent/ writ petitioner was placed in the 6 coordination of the Hon'ble Chief Minister and necessary due approval from the competent authority/coordination of the Hon'ble Chief Minister has been obtained by the answering appellants and thereafter, the necessary permission for initially of departmental enquiry against the respondent/writ petitioner has been accorded vide order dated 31.05.2019. Thus, the appellants have strictly followed the entire procedure for initiation of departmental enquiry as well as recovery of amount against the respondent/writ petitioner and pursuant to the said permission, the order dated 31.10.2023 (Annexure P/1 in the writ petition) was issued against the respondent/writ petitioner and hence, there was no illegality or infirmity and the impugned order (Annexure P/1 in the writ petition) was passed strictly in accordance with law. 8. It is further stated by the learned State counsel that the Finance circular order bearing no. FB6/5/78/Ni.-2/Char dated 08.10.1978 issued by the Department of Finance clearly prescribes that the government recoveries for the tenure of service from a government servant can be made from the relief paid on pension. He also stated that in the departmental enquiry, the respondent/writ petitioner was duly afforded adequate opportunity to present his case by adducing the material evidences in order to prove his innocence whereas based upon the evidences collected in the course of inquiry and the statements of prosecution witnesses as well as the respondent/writ petitioner, the Inquiry OfÏcer found the respondent/writ petitioner guilty for the loss caused to the public exchequer and based upon the inquiry report, the order dated 31.10.2023 was passed against the writ petitioner which is just, proper and legal and does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 7 Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 08.01.2024 is untenable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly disposed off the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 11. While passing the impugned order, learned Single Judge held that perusal of document annexed with the writ petition shows that the respondent/writ petitioner stood retired from the services on 30.06.2017 and on that date neither any departmental enquiry was pending nor any order of recovery was passed against the respondent/writ petitioner. Order of punishment/recovery passed against the respondent/writ petitioner after his retirement without complying the provision of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976, is not permissible. Further, gone through the order dated 27.07.2017 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Nath Sonkar (supra), the case of the respondent/writ petitioner is squarely covered with the judgment of Ram Nath Sonkar (supra). Thus, learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the order dated 20.11.2023 (Annexure P/1 in the writ petition). 12. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while 8 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan