1 CGHC010192572026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4366 of 2026 Rakesh Kumar Mishra S/o Shri Mohan Ram Mishra Aged About 67 Years R/o B- 78, Walfort City, Bhatagaon, Raipur (C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest And Climate Change, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Forest And Climate Change, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Deputy Secretary Department Of Forest And Climate Change, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Chief Conservator Of Forest, Office Of Chief Conservator Of Forest, Raipur Circle, State Forst Research And Training Institute Campus, Zero Point, Balodabazar Road, Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Chief Conservator Of Forest Office Of Chief Conservator Of Forest, Bilaspur Circle, Sindhi Colony, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. GA RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.08.10 17:42:20 +0530 2 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 07/08/2026 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the charge-sheet dated 16.12.2025, issued by respondent No.3 in the name of the Governor under Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short, “the Rules of 1976”), together with the consequential order dated 12.03.2026, whereby departmental proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner after his retirement from service. 2. The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition are that the petitioner joined the Forest Department as Forest Ranger on 03.03.1983 and, after rendering more than thirty-eight years of service, superannuated from the post of Deputy Conservator of Forest on 31.08.2021. It is the case of the petitioner that no departmental proceeding was pending against him on the date of his retirement and his retiral dues, including pension and gratuity, were released. The allegations forming the basis of the impugned charge-sheet pertain to certain construction works and alleged financial irregularities relating to the year 2020, when the petitioner was posted as In-charge Divisional Forest Officer, Marwahi Forest Division, Pendra Road. The charge- sheet, however, came to be issued only on 16.12.2025, after the petitioner had already retired from service. 3. (a) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the very 3 institution of the departmental proceedings is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the allegations forming the basis of the charge-sheet relate to the year 2020, whereas the petitioner had superannuated from service on 31.08.2021 and the charge-sheet came to be issued only on 16.12.2025. Learned counsel would submit that Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules of 1976 specifically provides that departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. It is, therefore, contended that the proceedings are ex facie barred by the statutory provision itself. (b) Learned counsel would further submit that immediately after receipt of the charge-sheet, the petitioner sought supply of the documents relied upon by the department so as to enable him to submit an effective reply. It is submitted that despite such request and reminder, the requisite documents were not supplied within the time granted and, thereafter, by order dated 12.03.2026, the departmental enquiry was initiated and the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. The petitioner thereafter submitted his response raising, inter alia, the objection regarding the statutory bar contained in Rule 9 and subsequently submitted a representation seeking cancellation of the charge-sheet and dropping of the departmental proceedings. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State would oppose the writ petition. It would be submitted that the allegations against the petitioner relate to financial irregularities in connection with Government works undertaken during the period when he was 4 functioning as In-charge Divisional Forest Officer and, therefore, the same require to be examined in a duly constituted departmental enquiry. It would further be submitted that the petitioner has an adequate opportunity to place his defence before the Inquiry Officer and that ordinarily interference by this Court at this juncture is not warranted. Learned State counsel would, therefore, pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and material available on record. 6. The question which falls for consideration is whether, after the petitioner had retired from service on 31.08.2021, departmental proceedings could be instituted against him in respect of the alleged events of the year 2020 by issuance of the charge-sheet dated 16.12.2025. 7. Rule 9(2)(b) of the Rules of 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 22-12-1995 (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 5 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 8. Since the charge-sheet was admittedly issued after the petitioner had already retired from service, the proceedings were required to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Rule 9 of the Rules. Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) clearly contemplates that departmental proceedings shall not be instituted against a retired employee in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. In the case at hand, from the pleadings and the documents placed by the parties it is quite vivid that the alleged event took place in the year 2020 whereas the charge-sheet as also the contemplation of departmental enquiry was done after lapse of more than four years from the said date. 9. It is noteworthy to mention here that mere appointment of an Enquiry 6 Officer or a Presenting Officer that too after about more than four years from the date of the alleged event of financial irregularities which took place during in the year 2020 prior to the date of the retirement of the petitioner is against the provisions of the Rules, 1976. 10. The contention of the respondents that the order dated 12.03.2026 amounts to institution of disciplinary proceedings cannot be accepted, as acceptance of such contention would defeat the statutory protection embodied under Rule 9 of the Rules. The mandatory safeguard provided by the Rules cannot be rendered otiose by merely appointing an Enquiry Officer. 11. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned charge-sheet dated 16.12.2025 and the consequential departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner by order dated 12.03.2026 are without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained in law. 12. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The charge-sheet dated 16.12.2025 (Annexure P/1) and the order dated 12.03.2026 (Annexure P/2), together with all consequential departmental proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, are hereby quashed and set aside. 13. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondents from taking such action as may be permissible under law, subject to strict compliance with the provisions of the Rules and other applicable statutory provisions. Sd Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul