2025:CGHC:59578 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 13401 of 2025 1 - Ramesh Pandey S/o Late Shri Lalji Pandey Aged About 63 Years R/o Mahamaya Ward, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development Through Director, Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Suyash Dhar,Dy. Govt. Advocate For Municipal Corporation : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 08.12.2025 1. The petitioner, by way of the present writ petition, is assailing the action of the respondents in withholding his gratuity on the ground that a departmental enquiry is presently pending against KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2025.12.09 11:03:39 +0530 him. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner retired from the post of Chief Municipal Officer on 31.10.2023. A charge-sheet was served upon him on 04.07.2023, pursuant to which a departmental enquiry commenced. Owing to the pendency of the said enquiry, his retiral dues have not been released, except the monthly pension. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that although the charge-sheet was issued on 04.07.2023, the enquiry has not been concluded even after the lapse of approximately two and a half years. It is further urged that a bare perusal of the articles of charge reveals that no financial irregularity has been attributed to the petitioner, and hence the continued withholding of his retiral dues is wholly unwarranted. Accordingly, a direction is sought to the respondents to forthwith release the petitioner’s retiral dues. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel would submit that whether any financial irregularity is made out or not is a matter of enquiry itself, and therefore would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. I have heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have meticulously examined the record. 6. From bare perusal of the record, it reflects that an enquiry was initiated issuing the charge-sheet on 04.07.2023. Nearly two and a half years have since elapsed, the departmental enquiry remains inconclusive, notwithstanding the fact that the circulars of the State Government mandate such enquiries ought to be concluded within a period of one year from the date of issuance of the charge-sheet. 7. In view of the above, the State is directed to bring the departmental enquiry to its logical end within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the petitioner’s full cooperation. Should the petitioner adopt delay tactics, the period prescribed herein shall stand extended commensurate with the petitioner’s conduct. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition (S), is disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge kishore