1 CGHC010269382026 2026:CGHC:32734 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5448 of 2026 Santosh Kumar Swarnkar S/o Late Faguwaram Aged About 63 Years R/o Danganiya, Rohanipuram, Near Alpha Palace, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director Directorate of Urban Administration and Development, Mantralay, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Joint Director Regional Office, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Nagar Panchayat Devbhog Through Its Chief Municipal Officer, Devbhog District Gariyaband, C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate For State : Mr. Hariom Rai, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 29/07/2026 1. The petitioner has called in question the charge-sheet dated 06.07.2026 issued by the Under Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development, State of Chhattisgarh, whereby departmental proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner after his retirement. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.07.31 10:51:07 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner superannuated from service on 30.06.2025. It is contended that after retirement, departmental proceedings can be instituted only in accordance with Rule 9(2)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. It is submitted that no sanction of the Hon'ble Governor was obtained prior to issuance of the impugned charge-sheet and, therefore, the very initiation of departmental proceedings is without jurisdiction and contrary to the statutory mandate. It is, thus, prayed that the impugned charge-sheet dated 06.07.2026 deserves to be quashed. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the departmental proceedings have been initiated in respect of alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner during his service tenure. However, he does not dispute that the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2025. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2025, whereas the impugned charge-sheet initiating departmental proceedings has been issued on 06.07.2026, i.e., after the petitioner's retirement. Rule 9(2)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 reads as under: "9. Right of Governor to withhold or withdraw pension. - xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (2) (a) The departmental proceedings [xxx] [Omitted by Notification No. FB-25-31-95-PWC-IV, dated 22-12- 3 1995 (w.e.f. 26-1-1996).], if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced, in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service : Provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to the Governor, that authority shall submit a report regarding its findings to the Governor. (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; (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and (iii) [shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings : [Substituted by Notification No. FB-6-3-78-N-II-IV, dated 10-11-1978 (w.e.f. 10-11- 1978).] (a) in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service in case it is proposed to withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof whether permanently or for a specified period; or (b) in which an order of recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of orders could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service if it is proposed to order recovery from his pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government]. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 4 6. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it manifest that where departmental proceedings are sought to be instituted after the retirement of a Government servant, the previous sanction of the Hon'ble Governor is a condition precedent. The requirement is mandatory. In the present case, the respondents have not placed any material on record to demonstrate that prior sanction of the Hon'ble Governor, as contemplated under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Rules, 1976, was obtained before issuance of the impugned charge-sheet dated 06.07.2026. In absence of the mandatory sanction of the Governor, the initiation of departmental proceedings after the petitioner's retirement by issuance of the impugned charge-sheet is contrary to Rule 9(2)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is allowed. The impugned charge-sheet dated 06.07.2026 is hereby quashed and set aside. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not examined the allegations on merits. Liberty is reserved to the respondents/State to proceed afresh against the petitioner, if so advised, strictly in accordance with law and after complying with the mandatory requirements of Rule 9(2)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu