1 2025:CGHC:41662 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1170 of 2022  Dr. Tohal Sahay Ram S/o Late Suja Ram Aged About 66 Years (Rtrd. Block Medical Officer) R/o Ward No. 2, Durga Chowk, Hospital Para, Kurmi, District Balrampur (Ramanujganjh) Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Director, Health Department, Block-A, 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Collector, District Balrampur (Ramanujganj) Chhattisgarh. 4. Chief Medical Officer, Balrampur, District Balrampur (Ramanujganj) Chhattisgarh. 5. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kusmi, District Balrampur (Ramanujganj) Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18. 08.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 30.03.2021 notice of charges issued by the respondent No. 2. 10.2 That, the respondents may be directed to release the whole amount of gratuity and pension with interest as early as possible within the prescribed period as decided by this Hon'ble High Court, in the interest of SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.08.19 16:53:57 +0530 2 justice. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper according to the facts and circumstances of the case along with the cost of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working on the post of Block Medical Officer, Kusmi, at the relevant time, and he got retired from services on 30.04.2020. He would further submit that a show-cause notice to initiate a departmental enquiry was issued against the petitioner by respondent No. 2 on 30.03.2021 on the ground that while the petitioner was holding the post of Block Medical Officer, Kusmi, an amount of Rs. 47,96,000/- transferred in the account of Jeevan Deep Samiti was withdrawn and used by the petitioner for other purpose. He would also submit that the show-cause notice issued on 30.3.2021 is in contravention of Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short “Rules, 1976”). He would pray to quash the impugned notice dated 30.03.2021. 3. On the other hand, Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose. She would submit that the petitioner had committed irregularities, which were detected by the department after the retirement of the petitioner; therefore, a show cause notice to initiate departmental enquiry was issued by the competent authority, and a copy of the notice was referred to the Secretary of the department. She would also submit that the provisions of Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Rules, 1976, were complied with; therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of Rules, 1976, reads as under:- 3 “9(2)(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment :- (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor” 6. A bare reading of the above-quoted provision would make it clear that if the departmental proceeding is not instituted while the Government servant was in service before his retirement or during his re-employment, it shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor. 7. The show-cause notice Annexure P/1 dated 30.03.2021 would show that the authority has not obtained the sanction from the competent authority before the issuance of the notice to initiate the departmental enquiry, and therefore, the notice is in contravention to the above-quoted rules. Accordingly, the notice Annexure P/1 dated 30.03.2021 issued by respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed. Consequently, this petition is hereby allowed. 8. The respondent authorities would be at liberty to initiate a departmental enquiry strictly in accordance with the law, if so advised. Meanwhile, the respondent authorities are directed to make payment of the undisputed amount of retiral dues to the petitioner. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant