1 2026:CGHC:7997 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7271 of 2019 P. R. Naik S/o Late Punauram Naik Aged About 67 Years R/o House No. 525, Priyadarshani Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Co- Operative Societies, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Accountant General Chhattisgarh, Balodabazar Road, Zero Point, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Commissioner Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Registrar Cooperative Societies, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Bank Limited, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) with WPS No. 613 of 2021 P. R. Naik S/o Late Punauram Naik Aged About 67 Years R/o House No. 525, Priyadarshani Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.02.18 10:16:36 +0530 2 ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department, Of Co- Operative Societies, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner Treasury, Account And Pension, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Registrar Cooperative Societies, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Joint Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Raipur Division, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Senior Treasury Officer District Treasury, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Dubey, Advocate For State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate For Respondent No.2 CGPSC in WPS/7271/2019 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate For Accountant General/Respondent No.3 in WPS/7271/2019 : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13/02/2026 1. The petitioner in WPS No. 7271 of 2019 has challenged the order dated 08.04.2019 (Annexure P/1), whereby the disciplinary authority inflicted penalty of reduction of 20% pension, exercising power under Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short, “Pension Rules, 1976”) and order passed by the appellate authority dated 22.07.2019 (Annexure P/2). 2. In WPS No. 613 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.11.2020 issued by the Senior Treasury Officer, Raipur, whereby 3 decision has been taken to recover excess payment of provisional pension. 3. Mr. Vikas Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner retired from the post of Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 31.03.2012. He would contend that after seven years from the date of retirement, respondent No.1 inflicted penalty of reduction of 20% pension exercising power under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, 1976. He would further submit that the appeal preferred before the Hon’ble Governor, as per the provisions of Rule 8(5) of the Pension Rules, 1976, was referred to the Secretary, who had passed order against petitioner exercising power of disciplinary authority and very same authority dismissed the appeal. He would submit that the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are bad in law. He would further submit that the disciplinary authority and appellate authority cannot be one and the same. He would argue that the power of the appellate authority can be exercised only by the Hon’ble Governor or the Council of Ministers. 4. With regard to order of recovery, he would contend that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was afforded before taking decision; therefore, the order of recovery of excess payment of pension is bad in law. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of T.P. Ratre vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, passed in Writ Petition No. 1337 of 2005 on 25.01.2018; thus he would pray for setting aside the impugned orders. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that petitioner while posted as Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Bank Ltd., sanctioned loans to 4 ineligible persons. They would submit that a departmental inquiry was conducted and sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner, and thereafter decision was taken by the disciplinary authority. They would contend that an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Governor and same was referred to the Secretary/respondent No.1, who exercised the power of appellate authority and dismissed the appeal; thus, they would submit that the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. Admittedly, the penalty was inflicted on the petitioner by respondent No.1 vide order dated 08.04.2019. The order dated 08.04.2019 was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Hon’ble Governor and, in turn, it was forwarded to the Secretary of the Department, who exercised power of appellate authority and dismissed the appeal. 8. Perusal of the orders Annexure P/1 & P/2 of WPS No.7271 of 2019 passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority would show that both the authorities are one and the same; thus, the order passed by respondent No.1, exercising the power of appellate authority, is bad in law and the same is not sustainable. 9. In the matter of T.P. Ratre (supra), the Coordinate Bench has held that the power of the Hon’ble Governor under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, 1976 can be exercised by the Council of Ministers. As appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Governor, it should have been decided either by Appellate Authority or Council of Ministers but the Secretary or Under Secretary was not competent to decide the appeal. 10.In the present case, the power of appellate authority has been exercised by the Secretary, who was disciplinary authority, therefore, 5 the order dated 22.07.2019 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent No.1 in WPS No.7271/2019 and subsequent, recovery order dated 11.11.2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.5 in WPS No.613/2021 are hereby quashed. 11.The appropriate Appellate authority shall consider the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 12.The entire exercise shall be completed by the said authority, i.e., the Council of Ministers, within a period of 120 days from today. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim