1 CGHC010196612026 2026:CGHC:37422 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4552 of 2026 Dr. Ashok Sharma S/o B. R Sharma Aged About 64 Years R/o Gram Jamdi, Tehsil- Bhaiyathan, Dist. Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Higher Education Department, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner Directorate of Higher Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Block- I, II-Floor, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Additional Director Sarguja Division, City- District- Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Director Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Anadi Sharma, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 20/08/2026 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the recovery order dated 19.09.2025, whereby an amount of Rs.2,80,600/- has been directed to be recovered from his pensionary benefits. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.08.24 12:55:41 +0530 2 2. The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition are that the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2022 from the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi). During his service, he was also entrusted with the additional charge of Principal of Pandit Ravishankar Tripathi College, Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur. Shri Rishi Kumar Pandey, Assistant Grade-II, was entrusted with establishment and accounting work, including maintenance of the cashbook. It is the case of the petitioner that the said employee repeatedly failed to maintain and produce the cashbook despite directions issued by the petitioner. The petitioner also informed the higher authorities regarding the irregularities and non-maintenance of the cashbook. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged against Shri Rishi Kumar Pandey regarding alleged embezzlement and forgery committed during the period 21/08/2017 to 10/10/2017. It is submitted that the said employee had himself admitted his guilt before the authorities. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that despite the aforesaid facts, after more than 08 years from the date of alleged act and after the petitioner's retirement, the respondents issued a show-cause notice and thereafter passed the impugned recovery order dated 19.09.2025, without conducting any departmental inquiry against the petitioner or recording any finding establishing his negligence or misconduct. The impugned order, therefore, is wholly mechanical and contrary to Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and the principles of natural justice. 3 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner had himself taken steps against Shri Rishi Kumar Pandey and had informed the competent authorities regarding his conduct. Therefore, the liability of the employee who allegedly committed the embezzlement could not mechanically be fastened upon the petitioner without independently determining his alleged negligence in accordance with law. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner, being In-charge Principal, was responsible for proper maintenance and verification of the accounts and was negligent in discharge of his duties. It is submitted that show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter the proposal for recovery was made. The State Public Service Commission was also consulted and its consent was obtained before passing the impugned order. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The principal question which arises for consideration is whether the respondents could have directed recovery from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner, after his retirement on lapse of more than , without conducting departmental proceedings in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 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: 4 "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 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 5 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. Rule 9(2)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 specifically governs departmental proceedings which are sought to be instituted against a Government servant after his retirement, where such proceedings were not instituted while he was in service. The provision places three important restrictions upon the exercise of such power. First, such proceedings cannot be instituted except with the sanction of the Governor. Secondly, such proceedings cannot be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. Thirdly, such proceedings are required to be conducted by such authority and at such place as may be directed by the Government and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings. 10. The third requirement is of particular significance in the present case. Rule 9 does not contemplate that, merely by issuing a notice or obtaining an administrative consultation, a pecuniary liability can straightaway be fastened upon the pension of a retired Government servant. Where recovery of pecuniary loss is proposed on the allegation of negligence or breach of orders, the Rules contemplate a determination of such negligence or breach in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings. The safeguard is intended to ensure that the retired employee gets an effective opportunity to meet the allegation and that the liability sought to be recovered from his pension is founded upon a duly arrived-at finding. 6 11. The present case has to be examined in the aforesaid statutory background. The alleged act of embezzlement/irregularity was committed by Shri Rishi Kumar Pandey in the year 2017. The petitioner himself was not alleged to have committed the said embezzlement. The allegation against the petitioner is essentially one of negligence in discharge of his duties as In-charge Principal. However, no departmental proceeding was instituted against the petitioner while he was in service and he retired on 30.06.2022. 12. The impugned recovery order has thereafter been passed only on 19.09.2025, i.e. nearly eight years after the alleged occurrence of the year 2017 and more than three years after the petitioner's retirement. Thus, if the alleged negligence of the petitioner is treated as forming part of the same event which occurred in the year 2017, the statutory restriction contained in Rule 9(2)(b)(ii), namely, that proceedings shall not be in respect of an event which took place more than four years before such institution, also assumes significance. More importantly, even otherwise, before fastening liability upon the petitioner, the respondents were required to determine, in accordance with the procedure contemplated by Rule 9, whether the petitioner had in fact committed any negligence or breach of orders which resulted in pecuniary loss to the Government. The material placed before this Court does not disclose that any departmental inquiry was conducted against the petitioner in accordance with the prescribed procedure or that any finding of negligence or misconduct was recorded against him. 13. The fact that proceedings were taken against Shri Rishi Kumar Pandey in 7 respect of the alleged embezzlement cannot, by itself, establish the petitioner's negligence. The alleged misconduct of Shri Rishi Kumar Pandey and the alleged negligence of the petitioner constitute separate issues. The liability of the petitioner was required to be independently determined after affording him an opportunity to meet the allegations and by following the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings. 14. The respondents have relied upon the issuance of show-cause notice and the subsequent consultation of the State Public Service Commission. However, these steps cannot be treated as a substitute for the statutory safeguards contained in Rule 9(2)(b). Consultation or administrative approval may be a step preceding the action, but it cannot dispense with the requirement of determining the petitioner's alleged negligence in accordance with the procedure prescribed for departmental proceedings. 15. In the present case, the position is further strengthened by the fact that the petitioner had, during his tenure, issued directions to Shri Rishi Kumar Pandey regarding maintenance and production of the cashbook and had also informed the higher authorities regarding the irregularities. Therefore, whether there was any negligence on the part of the petitioner and whether such negligence resulted in the alleged pecuniary loss were matters which required proper determination and could not have been presumed merely because the alleged embezzlement had taken place during the period when the petitioner was In-charge Principal. 16. Thus, the impugned order suffers from two fundamental infirmities: firstly, the recovery has been sought to be effected from the pensionary 8 benefits of the petitioner in respect of an alleged occurrence dating back to the year 2017, notwithstanding the statutory restrictions governing post-retiral proceedings; and secondly, the petitioner's alleged negligence has been fastened upon him without conducting the requisite departmental proceedings and recording a finding in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned recovery order dated 19.09.2025, whereby an amount of Rs.2,80,600/- has been directed to be recovered from the petitioner's pensionary benefits, cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly quashed. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu