1 CGHC010291162026 2026:CGHC:37961 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5783 of 2026 Dr. Balbeer Singh (B.S.) Chawla, S/o Late S. Harbhajan Singh Chawla, Aged About 66 Years Retired Principal Government Engineering Collage, Bilaspur, R/o Behind Allen Career Institute Dayalband, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Skill Development, Technical Education And Employment, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District -Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Directorate of Technical Education, Through The Director, Floor- III and IV, Block - III, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District -Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate General along with Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Additional AG (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 24/08/2026 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the charge-sheet dated 22.07.2025 issued under Rule 9 of ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.08.31 10:34:11 +0530 2 the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short, "the Rules of 1976"), whereby departmental proceedings have been sought to be initiated against the petitioner after his retirement from service. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer (Applied Mechanics) on 07.06.1986 through direct recruitment by the Public Service Commission. He would next submit that the the petitioner got retired from Government service on 31.03.2025 after rendering nearly four decades of service. It is his case that during his entire service career all matters relating to his promotion, pay fixation, service book, allowances, reimbursements and other service benefits were duly processed, verified and approved by the competent departmental authorities and no disciplinary proceedings were ever initiated against him. 3. He would next submit that after his retirement, the respondents raised certain demands against the petitioner, including a demand of Rs.40,154/- towards alleged excess Family Planning Incentive and a further demand of Rs.75,485/- alleging excess payment on account of fixation of pay under the 7th Pay Commission. The petitioner deposited the said amounts under protest and only with a view to obtaining the No Dues Certificate and securing release of his retiral benefits. Thereafter, the respondents issued the impugned charge-sheet dated 22.07.2025 under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976. The allegations contained therein relate to events and actions pertaining to the period from 2005 to 2016. 4. He would next submit that the impugned departmental proceedings are 3 ex facie barred by Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules of 1976, as the alleged events admittedly relate to a period much prior to four years preceding the institution of the proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioner retired on 31.03.2025, whereas the charge-sheet came to be issued only on 22.07.2025 and the allegations relate to incidents of the years 2005 to 2016. He would next submit that the statutory requirement under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) has also not been complied with. According to the petitioner, the approval/sanction relied upon by the respondents is not the sanction of the Governor as contemplated under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976. The alleged approval has been accorded by the Chancellor/competent authority under the applicable departmental arrangement and cannot be treated as sanction of the Governor for the purpose of instituting proceedings against a retired Government servant. 5. Learned Advocate General would submit that no separate sanction in the name of the Governor is available on record; however, the approval relied upon by the respondents has been issued by the Chancellor and the same, according to the respondents, is much prior to the period of four years. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The controversy essentially falls for consideration on two aspects, namely, whether the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner after his retirement are barred by the limitation prescribed under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules of 1976 and whether the requirement 4 of sanction contemplated under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) has been duly complied with. 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 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 5 (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. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that where departmental proceedings are sought to be instituted against a Government servant after his retirement, the proceedings must satisfy both the statutory safeguards contained in Rule 9(2)(b)(i) and Rule 9(2) (b)(ii). The provision does not merely prescribe a procedural formality; it places a substantive statutory restriction upon the power to initiate departmental proceedings against a retired employee. 9. In the present case, the petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2025 whereas the allegations contained in the impugned charge-sheet dated 22.07.2025 relate to events of the years 2005 to 2016. Even if the last of the alleged events is taken into consideration, the same had occurred more than four years prior to the issuance of the charge-sheet dated 22.07.2025. The statutory period of four years had, therefore, long expired before the impugned departmental proceedings were instituted. 10. The fact that the alleged irregularities may have been noticed or examined subsequently cannot extend the statutory period prescribed under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii). The Rule places the restriction with reference to the event which took place and not merely with reference to the date on 6 which such event was allegedly discovered or examined. 11. There is yet another infirmity in the impugned proceedings. Rule 9(2)(b) (i) expressly provides that departmental proceedings against a retired Government servant shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Hon’ble Governor. In the present case, even according to the submission of the learned State Counsel, no sanction in the name of the Hon’ble Governor has been produced or shown. The sanction/approval relied upon by the respondents is one issued by the Chancellor. Such approval by itself cannot be treated as the statutory sanction of the Hon’ble Governor contemplated under Rule 9(2)(b)(i), particularly when the Rule specifically uses the expression "sanction of the Governor". The statutory requirement cannot be substituted by an approval accorded by an authority other than the authority expressly contemplated by the Rule. 12. Thus, the impugned proceedings suffer from violation of both the mandatory safeguards contained in Rule 9(2)(b)(i) and Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules of 1976. The departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner after his retirement, in respect of events relating to the years 2005 to 2016, are consequently without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained in law. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned charge-sheet dated 22.07.2025 issued under Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and all consequential departmental proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are legally unsustainable. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The 7 impugned charge-sheet dated 22.07.2025, along with all consequential departmental proceedings initiated pursuant thereto against the petitioner, is hereby quashed and set aside. 14. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondents from taking such action as may otherwise be permissible under law, subject to strict compliance with the provisions of the Rules of 1976 and other applicable statutory provisions. 15. So far as the prayer of the petitioner for refund of the amounts of Rs.40,154/- and Rs.75,485/- deposited by him towards the alleged excess payment is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner shall avail the appropriate remedy by moving an application before the competent/appropriate authority for refund of the aforesaid amounts, along with such consequential relief as may be permissible in law. 16. In view of the aforesaid submission, this Court is not examining the said claim on its merits at this stage. It is observed that, in the event the petitioner files an appropriate application before the competent authority seeking refund of the aforesaid amounts, the same shall be considered and decided by the competent authority, in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a reasonable period. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu