1 2026:CGHC:2854 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2476 of 2023 Anil Kumar Dubey S/o Late Shri Devi Dutta Dubey, Aged About 67 Years Superintending Engineer (Retired), R/o H. No. C-27, Sector -7 New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Engineer-In-Chief, Mahanadi Godawari Kachhar, Water Resource Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Godawari Kachhar, Water Resource Department, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Superintending Engineer, Shivnath Mandal Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh. 6 - Deputy Commissioner, Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe, Other Backward Class, And Minority Welfare Raipur Chhattisgarh. 7 - Joint Director, Treasury, Account And Pension, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.01.16 18:26:37 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 16.01.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 02.02.2023 issued by the office of respondent no. 1 (Annexure P-1). 10.3 This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, order/order, direction/ directions to the respondent authorities for settle the final pension of the petitioner and also pay the arrears of pension for delaying the final settlement. 10.4 This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, order/order, direction/ directions to the respondent authorities to disburse the entire amount of gratuity with interest 18% per annum. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit. 3 10.6 Cost of the petition may also been given.” 2. Brief facts of the case, are that the petitioner was working as Executive Engineer (Civil) and, pursuant to the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting dated 11.09.2017, was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) vide order dated 16.10.2017 and posted at Shivnath Mandal, District Durg. While working on the said post, respondent No.2 issued a show-cause notice dated 08.12.2017 alleging irregularity in payment of escalation amount pertaining to October 2005 and fixing liability of Rs. 37.78 lakhs upon the petitioner. The petitioner superannuated on 31.12.2017. On receiving the notice belatedly, he submitted his explanation on 15.01.2018, stating that during the relevant period (2006–2009) the escalation bills were prepared, verified and approved by the then Deputy Engineer/Assistant Engineer, and that the petitioner, as Executive Engineer, merely forwarded the bills for payment after technical verification by the subordinate officers. 3. Without considering the petitioner’s explanation, the respondents vide order dated 02.02.2018 sanctioned only 90% provisional pension. The petitioner made a representation dated 06.02.2020 for release of full pension and gratuity, which remained undecided. Consequently, the petitioner filed W.P.(S) No.2318/2020, wherein the Court by order dated 22.06.2020 directed the respondents to decide the grievance within 90 days 4 and to release the admissible dues thereafter. Subsequently, by letter dated 29.04.2022, the petitioner was informed about the proposed departmental enquiry and withholding of 10% pension without affording him due opportunity. The petitioner further discovered that after about seven months of his superannuation, respondent No.4 had issued a charge sheet dated 24.07.2018 (communicated under covering letter dated 23.08.2018), initiating departmental proceedings, which were never served upon the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 20.02.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.1 is wholly arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law, being contrary to the C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, the C.G. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976, the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The impugned order has been passed without application of judicial mind, on an incorrect factual premise, and without considering the bona fide explanation and statutory rights of the petitioner. 5. It is contended that the entire action of the respondents stems from a so-called backdoor departmental enquiry relating to an alleged irregularity of the year 2005, which was never communicated to the petitioner for more than a decade. From 2005 till issuance of the show-cause notice dated 08.12.2017, no 5 allegation or misconduct was ever communicated to the petitioner. Even the said show-cause notice was issued at the fag end of service, and though the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 15.01.2018 after superannuation on 31.12.2017, the same was neither considered nor decided. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents, in gross suppression of facts, informed this Court that the petitioner did not submit his explanation, whereas in fact the reply dated 15.01.2018 was duly submitted. It is emphasized that the charge- sheet dated 24.07.2018 was issued after retirement and was never properly served upon the petitioner. Thus, the initiation as well as continuation of departmental proceedings after superannuation and after an inordinate delay of more than six years is in flagrant violation of Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, 1976 and Rule 9 of the C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, rendering the entire action without jurisdiction. 7. Learned counsel submits that under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, pension can be withheld only by the Governor and only after a validly instituted and concluded departmental proceeding in which the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct. In the present case, neither was the enquiry instituted in accordance with law during service, nor was it concluded within the mandatory period, nor has any finding of guilt been recorded. Therefore, withholding 6 of pension and gratuity is ex facie illegal, as held in Gous Ali Beg v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012 (2) CGLRW 509). 8. It is further argued that the prolonged pendency of enquiry, without conclusion even after six years of retirement, disentitles the respondents from withholding pensionary benefits. Reliance is placed on the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Krishna Kumar Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh passed in WPS No.2797/2019, wherein it has been consistently held that departmental enquiries must be concluded within a reasonable time and that pension and gratuity cannot be withheld indefinitely. 9. Learned counsel lastly submits that pension is not a bounty but a statutory and constitutional right, constituting “property” under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Denial of full pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other retiral dues to a superannuated employee on the basis of an unconcluded and illegally instituted enquiry is arbitrary, oppressive and unconstitutional. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and the respondents be directed to release the full pensionary and retiral benefits with consequential reliefs. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that while the petitioner was posted on deputation with the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Development Department as Executive Engineer, he executed works relating to the 7 construction of Eklavya Aawasiya Vidyalaya at Antagarh, District Kanker. In respect of the said works, serious audit objections were raised by the Accountant General, Raipur, and as per Clause 2.1.6 of the Audit Report (2010–11) placed before the Public Accounts Committee, the petitioner was found responsible for irregular and excess payment of government funds to the tune of Rs. 37.78 lakhs. Consequently, a show-cause notice dated 08.12.2017 was duly issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation regarding the misconduct and financial irregularity. It is further submitted that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired from service w.e.f. 31.12.2017 while holding the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) at Shivnath Mandal, Durg. Thereafter, a charge-sheet dated 24.07.2018 was issued to the petitioner, wherein he was found guilty of wasteful expenditure and excess payment of government money, as escalation payment was made on the basis of an earlier contract despite issuance of a revised contract in October 2005. 11. Learned State counsel contends that after issuance of the show- cause notice dated 08.12.2017, reminder notices were also issued to the petitioner by the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Development Department, however, the petitioner failed to submit his explanation. Due to superannuation, the petitioner was repatriated to his parent department, i.e., the Water Resources Department. Thereafter, in accordance with Rule 9 of the 8 Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, the disciplinary authority—namely, the Under Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Water Resources Department passed the impugned punishment order dated 02.02.2023, imposing penalty of withholding 10% of the petitioner’s pension for a period of five years. It is submitted that before passing the impugned order, due approval and consent of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission were obtained, and the decision was taken in coordination with and with the approval of the competent authority, including the Hon’ble Chief Minister. The order, therefore, has been passed strictly in accordance with law and in conformity with Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. 12. Learned State counsel further submits that so far as the claim of the petitioner for release of final pension, gratuity and arrears is concerned, the same has already been addressed. Pursuant to the impugned order dated 02.02.2023, the pension case of the petitioner has been finalized and he has been granted pension w.e.f. 01.01.2018 at the rate of Rs.44,235/- per month. Additionally, the death-cum-retirement gratuity amounting to Rs. 16,86,828/- has also been released to the petitioner. The Pension Payment Order dated 19.04.2024 evidencing the same has been placed on record as Annexure R-1. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned order has been passed strictly in accordance with the 9 statutory provisions, after due process and consideration of the audit objections and departmental proceedings, and no interference is warranted by this Court. The writ petition being devoid of merit is thus liable to be dismissed. 13. I have considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties and carefully perused the material available on record. 14. It is not in dispute that the alleged misconduct pertains to the year 2005 and no action whatsoever was initiated against the petitioner for more than a decade. The first show-cause notice was issued only on 08.12.2017, at the fag end of the petitioner’s service career, and even the same was not properly communicated. The petitioner having already superannuated on 31.12.2017, submitted his explanation on 15.01.2018, which admittedly was neither considered nor decided. Thereafter, the charge-sheet dated 24.07.2018 was issued after the petitioner’s retirement and was also not duly served upon him. Initiation of departmental proceedings after superannuation and continuation thereof for years together without conclusion is ex facie contrary to the mandate of Rule 9 of the M.P./C.G. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and Rule 9 of the C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. 15. The record further reflects that even after lapse of more than six years from the date of retirement of the petitioner, no lawful 10 departmental enquiry was concluded, no finding of guilt was recorded by a competent authority after affording due opportunity of hearing, and yet the respondents proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 20.02.2023 in a predetermined and arbitrary manner. Such an action strikes at the very root of the principles of natural justice and fair play and cannot be countenanced in law. 16. This Court is unable to accept the contention of the respondents that the impugned order is saved by Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, 1976. A bare reading of the said Rule makes it abundantly clear that withholding or withdrawal of pension can be ordered only by the Governor and that too upon the pensioner being found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence in a duly instituted and concluded departmental or judicial proceeding. In the present case, neither was the proceeding validly instituted in accordance with law nor was it concluded within the prescribed or reasonable time, nor has any adjudication of guilt been recorded. Therefore, the impugned order is clearly without jurisdiction, as has been consistently held by this Court in Gous Ali Beg (supra). 17. This Court cannot be oblivious of the settled legal position that pension and gratuity are no longer a matter of bounty but are statutory and constitutional rights forming part of the property of a retired government servant under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Indefinite withholding of pensionary and retiral benefits 11 on the pretext of a stale, unconcluded and legally untenable departmental enquiry amounts to unjust enrichment by the State and results in grave hardship to a superannuated employee, offending the very concept of social security in service jurisprudence. 18. The defence of the respondents that certain pensionary benefits have since been released does not cure the inherent illegality and arbitrariness attached to the impugned order. Payment of partial retiral dues after years of unwarranted delay cannot validate an order which is otherwise void, unconstitutional and contrary to statutory rules. 19. Accordingly, this Court holds that the impugned order dated 20.02.2023 (Annexure P-1) is arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of the M.P./C.G. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976, as well as the C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and the same is hereby quashed. 20. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release all remaining pensionary and retiral benefits payable to the petitioner, including full pension without any deduction, along with gratuity, leave encashment and all consequential dues, if not already paid, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest on the delayed payment 12 of pensionary benefits at an appropriate rate in accordance with law. 21. The respondents are further restrained from continuing or giving effect to any departmental proceedings arising out of the alleged misconduct of the year 2005, the same being legally unsustainable on account of delay, lack of jurisdiction and violation of statutory provisions. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh