1 2025:CGHC:38225-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 563 of 2025 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Home And Police Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar., District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Director General Of Police Phq - Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Superintendent Of Police District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4. The Reserve Inspector Police Line, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Suresh Singh S/o Late Vijay Bahadur Singh Aged About 57 Years Posted As Asstt. Sub Inspector, (Mechanic) (M.T. Branch) At Police Line, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Shri Gurjit Singh, The Then Reserve Inspector, At - Police Line, Raipur And Now Posted As Deputy Superintendent Of Police, At O/o The Superintendent Of Police, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. For Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.08.05 11:31:18 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 04 .08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants as well as Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay. 2. Considering the grounds mentioned in the application (I.A. No. 1 of 2025), the same is allowed. Delay of 97 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 8586 of 2019 (Suresh Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner has been allowed by the learned Single Judge. 4. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the parties that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 560 of 2025 (State of Chhattisgarh & Others vs. Suresh Singh) vide order dated 01.08.2025 observing as follows : “8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned order and the finding recordedby the learned Single 3 Judge while allowing the writ petition that, without any inquiry or criminal proceeding and even prior to obtaining any preliminary inquiry report, impugned show cause notice dated 11-9-2015 and recovery order dated 16-11-2025 have been issued by the Superintendent of Police, Raipur and directed for adjustment/recovery of huge amount of Rs. 80,49,387.34/- from the salary of respondent only at the behest of said consent dated 27-10-2025 submitted by the respondent, whereas contents of consent dated 27.10.2025, itself shows that, the respondent has not unequivocally admitted the allegation, rather he has denied the allegation and stated that he has not committed any mistake. Having considered such ambiguous admission of the respondent and further considering his oral explanation, in which, he has stated that he has not committed any theft or any wrong in the petrol pump, such recovery order ought to have been made after conducting due departmental inquiry and also other legal proceeding, as has been recommended by the inquiry officer in belated preliminary inquiry report dated 29-1-2018. 9. Further as the contention of the appellants is that the recovery of deficit amount from the respondent is a minor penalty under Rule 10 of the CCA Rules. 10. Careful perusal of the Rule 10 of the CCA Rules shows that punishment of recovery from salary, whole or part, of any pecuniary loss caused by the employee to the government, is minor penalty, and can be imposed on any government servant only after informing him under Rule 16(1)(a) of the CCA Rules, in writing, of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior, on which, it is proposed to be taken, and after giving him a 4 reasonable opportunity to make such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal. 11. Reverting to the facts of the instant case in the light of the aforesaid proposition, it is quite vivid that in the instant case, only on the basis of order dated 11-9- 2015, seeking clarification with regard to deficit of amount of the petrol pump and directing him for adjustment of the amount and in pursuance thereof, consent by denying allegation dated 27-10-2015 was submitted by the respondent. The letters annexed as Annexure P-1 in the writ petition cannot be construed as a proposal to take action against the respondent with provided in Section 16(a) of the CCA Rules and only in the light of said consent in form of denial of allegation submitted by the respondent, the order dated 16-11-2015 has been passed by the Superintendent of Police, Raipur holding him guilty of embezzlement of Rs. 80,49,387.34/- and directed for adjustment of the same by deducting Rs. 10,000/- per month from the salary of respondent, which is contrary to the well settled principles of law as show cause notice/ adjustment notice dated 11-9-2015 would not amount to proposal to take action against the delinquent and it would also not amount to serving of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour on which action is proposed to be taken under Rule 16(1)(a) of the CCA Rules and there is complete non -compliance of Rule 16(1)(a) of the said Rules, as no opinion has been recorded by the disciplinary authority that, as to why, inquiry is not necessary, taking alleged consent dated 27-10-2015 submitted by the respondent under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under Clause (b), into consideration. Though in instant case, preliminary inquiry was conducted and report dated 29- 5 1-2018 (Annexure R-4) was submitted, but as per that inquiry report itself, the respondent has denied the allegation of embezzlement of said amount. 12. So far as withholding of pension, and retiral dues i.e. gratuity etc. is concerned, it is settled preposition of law that, right to receive pension by the employee has been recognized by Hon’ble Apex Court as right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in the case of Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar [1971) 2 SCC 330], 13. As in the instant case, as has been observed hereinabove, neither any departmental proceeding nor any judicial proceeding (criminal case) was initiated or pending against the respondent on the date of his retirement i.e. 29-2-2024, therefore, withholding of pension and gratuity of the respondent, is not found to be valid in view of above judgment rendered by the Apex Court and further in view of Rule 9 and Rule 64 of the Rules, 1976. Therefore, the respondent is entitled for full pension and gratuity payable to him on the date of his retirement. In that view of the matter, the appellants are also unjustified in withholding the amount of leave encashment, GPF, GIS etc. of the respondent, which otherwise he is entitled for. 14. In view of foregoing, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error, warranting interference of this Court. 15. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.” They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 560 of 2025, this appeal may 6 also be dismissed in the same terms. 5. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 560 of 2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 560 of 2025. 6. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 01.08.2025 passed in WA No. 560 of 2025 (State of Chhattisgarh & Others vs. Suresh Singh). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan