1 2026:CGHC:17327 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6575 of 2025 1 - K.R. Darshyamkar S/o Late Shri Jagram Aged About 66 Years Retired Assistant Engineer (Civil) The Then Incharge Executive Engineer, Office Of The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (B/ R), Division Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh . --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Public Works, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Engineer-In-Chief Department Of Public Works, Nirman Bhawan, North Block, Sector- 19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Engineer Department Of Public Works, Surguja Zone, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Superintendent Engineer Department Of Public Works (B/ R), Circle Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ----Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS system) For Petitioner : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 15/04/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following relief (s) :- 10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records relating to the case of the petitioner. BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 10.2 That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ and quash the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) and chargesheet dated 01.02.2024 (Annexure P-2) issued by Respondent No.1. 10.3 That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the operation and effect of the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by Respondent No.1 till the pendency of the instant petition. 10.4 That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to release all the pensionary benefits of petitioner with interest of 12% within a period of 15 days. 10.5 Any other relief which Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and also cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner while working on the post of Assistant Engineer and posted as Incharge Executive Engineer in the office of Public Works Department, Jashpur, District Jashpur stood retired on 31.01.2021. He contended that after about more than three years of retirement, respondents/department has issued a charge-memo to petitioner alleging that petitioner is involved in corruption in construction of road from Charaidand to Damera in the year 2019. Charge-sheet was served on petitioner on 05.03.2024. He contended that when once petitioner stood retired from service without any show cause notice, or initiation of the enquiry proceedings during such period, respondents authorities could not have directly issued the charge memo for initiating the departmental enquiry against petitioner unless and until sanction is obtained from the competent authority. In support of his contention he referred to sub-rule 2 (b) and sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (In short ‘the Rules, 1976’). 3 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that after taking note of involvement of petitioner in corruption, charge-memo has been issued for initiating departmental enquiry. He submits that enquiry will be conducted strictly in accordance with the procedure as provided under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966, however, upon putting specific query with regard to sanction, if any, obtained from the competent authority for initiating the departmental enquiry against petitioner (retired employee), he submits that in the pleadings of the reply there is no mention nor any document is placed on record in this regard. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. It is not in dispute that petitioner while holding the post of Assistant Engineer stood retired from service on 31.01.2021. Charge-memo issued to petitioner is dated 01.02.2024 and stated to be received on 05.03.2024. Perusal of the charge-memo issued to petitioner would show that the Committee constituted by Collector vide letter dated 20.04.2022 has submitted report that while constructing the road, permission granted by the Forest Department on 18.03.2019 was for construction of the road of 3.75 M. wide and many of the places of width of the road was found 12.54 M. and further that the agreement for earthwork was 60377.86 cubic meter, however, payment is made of 196036.66 cubic meter and Enquiry Committee has found earthwork of 116627.36 cubic meter. From the contents of the aforementioned facts as is reflecting from the charge-memo it is appearing that enquiry 4 was initiated after the report submitted of the Committee constituted by the Collector only after 20.04.2022 i.e. after retirement of petitioner from his service.. 6. The respondents/State have not made any pleadings that sanction as required under Rule -9 of the Rules, 1976 has been obtained prior to initiation of the departmental enquiry proceedings nor any documents in this regard has been filed. Rule 9 of the Rules, 1976 is extracted below for ready reference :- “9. Right of governor to withhold or withdraw pension.-(1) The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period. and of ordering recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government if, in any departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re- employment after retirement: Provided that the State Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed: Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below "[the minimum pension as determined by the Government from time to time]: (2) (a) The departmental proceedings [x x x], 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. 5 (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:- (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). (3) No judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of an event which took place, more than four years before such institution. (4) In the case of a Government servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under sub-rule (2), a provisional pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity as provided in "[rule 64], as the case may be, shall be sanctioned: Provided that where pension has already been finally sanctioned to a Government servant prior to institution of departmental proceedings, the Governor may, by order in writing, withhold, with effect from the date of institution of such departmental proceedings fifty per cent of the pension so sanctioned subject however that the pension payable after such withholding is not reduced to less than (the minimum pension as determined by the Government from time to time]: 6 Provided further that where departmental proceedings have been instituted prior to the 25th October, 1978, the first proviso shall have effect as it for the words "with effect from the date of institution of such proceedings" the words "with effect from a date not later than thirty days from the date aforementioned," had been substituted: Provided also that- (a) If the departmental proceedings are not completed within a period of one year from the date of institution thereof, fifty per cent of the pension withheld shall stand restored on the expiration of the aforesaid period of one year; (b) If the departmental proceedings are not completed within a period of two years from the date of institution the entire amount of pension so withheld shall stand restored on the expiration of the aforesaid period of two years; and (c) If in the departmental proceedings final order is passed to withhold or withdraw the pension or any recovery is ordered, the order shall be deemed to take effect from the date of the institution of departmental proceedings and the amount of pension since withheld shall be adjusted in terms of the final order subject to the limit specified in sub-rule (5) of rule 43]. (5) Where the Government decides not to withhold or withdraw pension but orders recovery of pecuniary loss from pension, the recovery shall not be made at a rate exceeding one-third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of a Government servant. (6) For the purpose of this rule- (a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and (b) Judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted- (i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made, and 7 (ii) In the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint is presented in the court.” 7. Perusal of the Rule 9 (2) (b) provides that departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor. According Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) further provides that enquiry is not to be initiated with respect to any event took place more than four years from the date of such institution. 8. In the case at hand, it is not the case of either party that petitioner is in the re-employment and further the period of construction of the road as is reflecting from the charge-memo is of the year 2019. Departmental enquiry proceedings initiated by issuing charge-memo on 01.02.2024 from which it appears that the decision to initiate departmental enquiry was taken by respondents/State of the event which is prior to four years from the date of the institution of the departmental enquiry. 9. Since the State/respondents have neither pleaded nor produced any document with regard to prior sanction of the Governor and in the absence of such pleadings or supporting documents, it can be inferred that no prior sanction was obtained before initiation of the departmental enquiry proceedings against the petitioner. Therefore, the initiation of departmental enquiry proceedings against the petitioner after retirement, without obtaining prior sanction from the Governor, is not sustainable. 10. In case of State of Jharkhand and others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210, it has been held by Their 8 Lordships of the Supreme Court that gratuity and pension are not bounty and it is thus a hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of property. This right to property cannot be taken away without the due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 has held as under:- “It is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not the bounties. An employee earns these bene- fits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and unblem- ished service. Conceptually it is so lucidly described in D.S. Nakara and Ors. Vs. Union of India; (1983) 1 SCC 305 by Justice D.A. Desai, who spoke for the Bench, in his inimitable style, in the following words: (SCC pp.319-20, paras 18-20) "18. The approach of the respondents raises a vital and none too easy of answer, question as to why pension is paid. And why was it required to be liberalised? Is the employer, which expression will include even the State, bound to pay pen- sion? Is there any obligation on the employer to provide for the erstwhile employee even after the contract of employment has come to an end and the employee has ceased to render service? 19. What is a pension? What are the goals of pension? What public interest or purpose, if any, it seeks to serve? If it does seek to serve some public purpose, is it thwarted by such artificial di- vision of retirement pre and post a certain date? We need seek answer to these and incidental questions so as to render just justice between parties to this petition. 20. The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty a gratituous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court has been swept un- der the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors. wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a Govern- ment servant coming within those rules is enti- tled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon any one's discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied maters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by virtue 9 of the rules. This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab and Anr. V. Iqbal Singh (1976) 2 SCC 1." It is thus hard earned benefit which accrues to an em- ployee and is in the nature of "property". This right to property cannot be taken away without the due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 14. The right to receive pension was recognised as a right to property by the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar." 12. For the foregoing discussions and in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this writ petition is allowed. Order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) so far as it relates to petitioner and charge-sheet dated 01.02.2024 (Annexure P-2) issued to petitioner are hereby quashed. The respondents authorities are directed to release all the pensionary benefits in favour of petitioner within further period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. However, the respondents authorities will be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law and the rules applicable, if they so desire. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram