1 CGHC010225262026 2026:CGHC:34479 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4547 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 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, Bilaspur Circle, Sindhi Colony, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 06/08/2026 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the charge-sheet dated 31.12.2025 issued by respondent No.3 in the name of the Governor, communicated to the petitioner vide ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.08.11 17:06:09 +0530 2 letter dated 15/16.01.2026 by respondent No.4, whereby departmental proceedings have been sought to be initiated against the petitioner after his retirement from service under Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short, "the Rules of 1976"). 2. The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was posted as In-charge Divisional Forest Officer, Marwahi Forest Division, Pendra Road, from 30.08.2019 to 31.08.2021 and thereafter superannuated from service on 31.08.2021. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of his retirement no departmental proceeding was pending against him and, after his retirement, the retiral dues including pension and gratuity were released to him. 3. The petitioner has contended that, all of a sudden, after lapse of more than four years from the alleged period of misconduct, a charge-sheet dated 31.12.2025 came to be issued against him alleging financial irregularities in relation to construction works undertaken under CAMPA Funds during the financial years 2019-20 and 2020-21. The allegation, in substance, is that payment was made to the supplier/contractor/tenderer, namely Sahil Enterprises, for utilization/supply of minor minerals without deduction of the requisite royalty, thereby allegedly causing financial loss to the State Government. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned charge-sheet is ex facie barred by the provisions of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules of 1976, inasmuch as the alleged events admittedly relate to the financial years 2019-20 and 2020-21, whereas the charge-sheet itself 3 came to be issued only on 31.12.2025, i.e. after expiry of four years from the alleged events. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner had already retired from service on 31.08.2021 and the departmental proceedings were not instituted while he was in service. Therefore, after his retirement, the respondents could initiate departmental proceedings only subject to the restrictions specifically contained in Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976. According to the petitioner, the statutory embargo contained in Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) is mandatory and does not permit institution of proceedings in respect of an event which took place more than four years before such institution. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner had, immediately upon receipt of the communication regarding the charge-sheet, sought supply of the relevant documents so as to enable him to submit an effective reply. A further reminder was also submitted. However, the documents were supplied only subsequently. The petitioner thereafter submitted a detailed reply denying the allegations and specifically pointed out that the charge itself had been framed by adding/deleting words from the applicable provisions and that, under the terms of the tender/agreement, the responsibility for payment of royalty was upon the contractor. It is further submitted that the petitioner had, during his tenure itself, taken steps upon coming to know about the alleged default of the supplier and had directed the concerned Range Officers to obtain the requisite royalty certificates and had also instructed that the security amount of M/s Sahil Enterprises should not be released without royalty clearance. According to the petitioner, despite such instructions, after his 4 retirement the entire amount of the contractor was released by the department without making recovery. It is, therefore, submitted that the allegation cannot be mechanically attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that an inquiry had earlier been conducted pursuant to the complaint concerning the alleged irregularities and an Inquiry Report dated 30.09.2024 was prepared. However, even the said inquiry/report cannot extend or enlarge the statutory period prescribed under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules of 1976. The date of discovery of an alleged irregularity or the date of an inspection/inquiry cannot substitute the date of the alleged event, which is the expression specifically employed by the Rule. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State would submit that a complaint regarding financial irregularities and consequent loss to the Government in execution of construction works under the CAMPA Scheme was received. Pursuant thereto, an Inquiry Committee was constituted and a detailed inquiry was conducted. The Committee examined the relevant official records, project files, estimates, measurement books, bills, vouchers, correspondence, inspection reports and other connected documents and thereafter submitted its Inquiry Report dated 30.09.2024. Learned State counsel would further submit that the alleged misconduct relates to plantation/construction work undertaken during the financial year 2020-21 and, therefore, according to the respondents, the charge-sheet was within the period contemplated by Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976. It is also submitted that the necessary approval/sanction for initiation of the departmental proceedings had 5 been obtained and that the petitioner would have adequate opportunity to defend himself during the departmental inquiry. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner is attempting to defend the matter on merits at the stage of challenge to the charge-sheet and that such disputed questions ought to be considered by the departmental authority in the course of inquiry. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The principal question which arises for consideration in the present writ petition is whether, after the petitioner's retirement on 31.08.2021, departmental proceedings could be instituted against him by issuance of the impugned charge-sheet dated 31.12.2025 in respect of alleged events relating to the financial years 2019-20 and 2020-21, having regard to the restriction contained in Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules of 1976. 8. Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 provides for the right of the Governor to withhold or withdraw pension. Rule 9(2) (b) of the Rules 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 6 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 9. Bare reading of the aforesaid provisions makes the statutory position clear. Where departmental proceedings have not been instituted during the service of the Government servant and are sought to be initiated after his retirement, such proceedings are subject to the restrictions contained in Rule 9(2)(b)(ii). One such mandatory restriction is that the proceedings shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. 7 10. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner retired from service on 31.08.2021. There is also no dispute that the impugned charge-sheet was issued only on 31.12.2025, much after the petitioner's retirement. More importantly, the allegations contained in the charge-sheet themselves relate to the alleged irregularities concerning construction works and utilization of minor minerals during the financial years 2019-20 and 2020-21, when the petitioner was posted as In-charge Divisional Forest Officer, Marwahi Forest Division. 11. Thus, even taking the case of the respondents at its highest, the alleged events relate to a period ending in the financial year 2020-21. The impugned charge-sheet, however, was issued on 31.12.2025. 12. Consequently, the alleged events forming the basis of the charge-sheet had occurred more than four years prior to the institution of the departmental proceedings. The statutory requirement contained in Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) is therefore attracted in the present case. 13. The contention of the respondents that an inquiry was conducted pursuant to a complaint and that an Inquiry Report was submitted on 30.09.2024 does not alter the legal position. The Rule does not prescribe the period with reference to the date on which the alleged misconduct was discovered, detected or subsequently inquired into. The statutory expression is "any event which took place more than four years before such institution." Therefore, the date of discovery of the alleged irregularity, the date of inspection, the date of constitution of an Inquiry Committee or the date of submission of an Inquiry Report cannot extend 8 the period expressly prescribed by Rule 9(2)(b)(ii). 14. In this regard, the distinction between the alleged event and its subsequent discovery assumes significance. If the alleged irregularity occurred during the financial years 2019-20 and 2020-21, the subsequent inquiry into such irregularity cannot have the effect of reviving a proceeding which has otherwise become barred by the statutory limitation contained in Rule 9. 15. The respondents have also relied upon the fact that approval/sanction for initiation of departmental proceedings was obtained. However, the requirement of sanction under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) and the prohibition contained in Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) operate in different fields. Even assuming that the requisite sanction was obtained, such sanction cannot override the independent statutory prohibition that departmental proceedings shall not be in respect of an event which took place more than four years before such institution. 16. The protection contained in Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) is not a mere procedural formality. It is a substantive statutory safeguard available to a retired Government servant against institution of stale departmental proceedings after the prescribed period. The present case stands on an even stronger footing inasmuch as the petitioner had retired on 31.08.2021, whereas the charge-sheet was issued only on 31.12.2025. The allegations relate to acts allegedly committed during his posting in the period from 30.08.2019 to 31.08.2021. Thus, the very foundation of the proceedings falls foul of the statutory restriction contained in Rule 9(2)(b)(ii). 9 17. This Court is conscious of the general principle that ordinarily a charge- sheet is not interfered with at the threshold and that disputed factual questions are to be examined in departmental proceedings. However, the present case does not require this Court to examine the correctness of the allegations on merits. The challenge goes to the jurisdiction of the respondents to institute the proceedings itself. 18. Once the statutory bar under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) is attracted, permitting the respondents to proceed with the departmental inquiry would amount to permitting continuation of a proceeding which the Rules themselves prohibit. 19. It is also not necessary for this Court, in view of the aforesaid conclusion, to enter into the disputed questions as to whether the petitioner was personally responsible for deduction/payment of royalty, whether such responsibility was upon the contractor under the tender/agreement, whether the petitioner had issued directions for obtaining royalty certificates, or whether the alleged financial loss was correctly assessed. Those questions would arise only if the departmental proceeding itself were legally maintainable. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned charge-sheet dated 31.12.2025, issued against the petitioner after his retirement in respect of events relating to the financial years 2019-20 and 2020-21, is hit by the statutory prohibition contained in Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. 10 21. Consequently, the impugned charge-sheet dated 31.12.2025, communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 15/16.01.2026, and all consequential departmental proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, cannot be sustained in law. 22. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned charge-sheet dated 31.12.2025 (Annexure P/1) and all consequential departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant thereto are hereby quashed and set aside. 23. In view of the quashing of the charge-sheet itself, all consequential actions taken pursuant thereto shall also stand quashed. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondents from taking such action as may otherwise be permissible under law, provided the same is strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and other applicable statutory provisions. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu