1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1479 of 2025 1 - Ghanshyam Das Garg @ Ghanshyam Garg S/o Late Dwarika Prasad Garg Aged About 62 Years R/o Near Ganesh Chowk Birpur District- Sheopur Madhya Pradesh - 476335 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation Through Its Managing Director Head Office Village Jhanj Sector - 24 Naya Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Manager (Personnel / Commercial / Technical ) Recovery Officer State Warehosing Corporation Head Office Village Jhanj Secto - 24 Naya Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner :- Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, Advocate For State :- Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 06.03.2025 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition to challenge the impugned order dated 25.10.2024 issued by the respondent No. 2 to the effect that, an amount of Rs. 37,12,111/- was directed to be recovered from the petitioner on account of financial loss to the Corporation. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner prays for following reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may please be kind enough in calling the entire records pertaining to impugned order (Annexure P-1). 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may please be kind enough in quashing and setting aside the impugned order (Annexure P-1). 10.3 This Hon'ble court may please be kind enough in directing the respondents to release the balance amount of the retiral benefits to the petitioner with consequential compound interest @ 18% per annum payable at monthly rests. 10.4 This Hon'ble court may please be kind enough in granting consequential benefits, cost and any other relief to the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was retired from the post of Sub-Engineer on 31.12.2023 and the impugned order was passed on 25.10.2024, i.e. after ten months of his retirement. It is stated that the respondent authorities, in absence of any provisions in the Service Rules framed, cannot initiate the recovery proceedings after retirement. He would further 3 submit that this issue has already been decided by this Court in WP(S) No. 4103/2021 and other connected cases on 25.04.2023 wherein this Court after examining the provision has held in paragraph 19 as under:- “19. The inevitable consequence of absence of such an enabling provision in the CCA Rules,1966 would be that the Corporation is denude of its authority to continue the disciplinary proceedings after the petitioners stood superannuated from Corporation employment and show cause notices dated 21.05.2021 & 22.09.2021 and article of charges dated 17.06.2021 & 12.10.2021 issued by respondent No. 2 against the respective petitioners deserve to be and are hereby quashed.” 4. Learned counsel for the respondent would not deny the factum of issue decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(S)No. 4103/2021. Learned counsel for respondent/s would further submit that the inquiry has already been completed, as such facts of WP(S) No. 3184/2024 are distinguishable and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. This was vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that unless and until the inquiry report is acted upon by imposing any punishment it cannot be said that the inquiry has reached to its logical end, as such this case is also similar to the other cases and would pray for allowing the writ petition. 4 6. Considering the submission made by the parties and also considering the fact that the inquiry has not reached to its final logical end and no final order was passed it cannot be said that even after retirement inquiry can be continued in view of the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP(S) No. 4103/2021 and also in absence of any specific provision made in the rules. Thus, writ petition deserve to be allowed and accordingly the writ petition is allowed in the same terms in case of Rakesh Kumar Pandey vs. Chhattisgarh Warehousing Corporation & Others decided on 25.04.2023. 7. Since disciplinary the proceeding initiated against the petitioner, including charge-sheet and show-cause notices have 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 date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, these writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha