1 CGHC010192582026 2026:CGHC:34479 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4355 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 - Under Secretary Department of Forest and Climate Change, Mantralaya, Mahanadi, Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Chief Conservator of Forest Office Of Chief Conservator Of Forest, Raipur Circle, State Forest Research And Training Institute Campus, Zero Point Balodabazar Road, Raipur (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 17.07.2025 issued under Rule 9 of ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.08.10 17:51:14 +0530 2 the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short "the Rules of 1976"), together with the consequential order dated 02.03.2026 whereby departmental proceedings have been directed to be instituted 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 in the year 1983 and, after rendering about 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 during his entire service career no departmental enquiry was pending against him on the date of retirement and all retiral dues including pension and gratuity were released. However, all of a sudden the charge sheet was issued in the month of July, 2025 and on receipt of the same he requested for supply of documents, but without supplying the same the departmental enquiry was contemplated on 2.3.2026 that too after lapse of about four years from the date of retirement. 3. (a) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that while the petitioner was functioning as In-charge Divisional Forest Officer, Marwahi, plantation works under the CAMPA Scheme were undertaken during the financial year 2020-21. Nearly four years thereafter, respondent No.2 issued the impugned charge-sheet alleging financial irregularities, excess payment and deficiencies in execution of the plantation work. He would next submit that immediately after service of the charge-sheet, the petitioner sought supply of all relied upon documents by submitting various representations. Though some 3 documents were subsequently supplied, the petitioner contends that the documents themselves reveal that the alleged excess payment relates to the month of May, 2021, the last payment voucher being dated 30.05.2021. (b) Learned counsel would further submit that the very institution of departmental proceedings is without jurisdiction inasmuch as Rule 9(2) (b)(ii) specifically prohibits institution of proceedings after retirement in respect of an event which took place more than four years before such institution. It is contended that the event alleged in the present case is the excess payment made in May, 2021, whereas the charge-sheet has been issued only on 17.07.2025. Thus, the proceedings are ex facie barred by the statutory rule itself. It is further submitted that the date of discovery of the alleged irregularity is wholly immaterial, as Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) speaks of the event which took place and not the date on which such event was subsequently detected. Learned counsel would submit that the respondents cannot substitute the statutory expression "event" by "date of inspection" or "date of discovery". 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State would submit that serious financial irregularities involving public funds have been found during inspection conducted on 18.02.2023 and therefore the respondents were justified in initiating departmental proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioner shall have adequate opportunity to defend himself before the enquiry officer and ordinarily this Court ought not to interfere at the stage of issuance of a charge-sheet. It is further contended that after issuance of the Government Order dated 02.03.2017, the 4 approval contemplated under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) is that of the Hon'ble Chief Minister acting in accordance with the Rules of Business framed under Articles 166(2) and 166(3) of the Constitution of India. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The question that falls for consideration is whether the order dated 2.03.2026 appointing the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer can be treated as institution of departmental proceedings. 7. The admitted factual position is that the petitioner retired from service on 31.08.2021 and the alleged event took place in May, 2021, whereas the charge-sheet containing the articles of charge came to be issued on 17.07.2025., i.e., after the petitioner's retirement. 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 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 5 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 month of May, 2021 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 Officer or a Presenting Officer that too after about more than four years 6 from the date of the alleged event of financial irregularities which took place during the month of May, 2021 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 2.03.2026 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 17.07.2025 and the consequential disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner on dated 2.3.2026 are without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained in law. 12. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The charge-sheet dated 17.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) and the order dated 2.3.2026 (Annexure-P/2) and all consequential disciplinary 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/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu