1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home And Police, Mantralaya, Mahanadi v. Sure
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:37850-DB NAFR JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.08.04 14:21:55 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 560 of 2025 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home And Police, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 The Director General Of Police Phq- Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 The Superintendent Of Police District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 The Reserve Inspector Police Line, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus Suresh Singh S/o Late Vijay Bahadur Singh Aged About 62 Years Posted As- Sub - Inspector, Mechanic M.T. Branch, At- Police Line, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/ State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. A.G., Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Kesharwani, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 01.08.2025 1. The appellant/respondent in writ petition has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 3137 of 2024, by which, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by the respondent/ writ petitioner. 2. (a) Facts of the case in nutshell are that, the writ petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable (Mechanic) on 1-7- 1982 in the police department. On 11-6-2011, while he was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector (Mechanic), he was directed to do duty in ‘Shourya Petrol Pump’, Police Line, Raipur (henceforth, referred to as ‘petrol pump’) without any written/formal order. From 11-6-2011 to 7-4-2014, he performed duty in said petrol pump under oral instruction of respondent No. 4/5. Thereafter, upon oral instruction, he was returned to Police Line, Raipur in M.T. Branch. Petitioner was holding technical post and in the petrol pump also, he was looking after mechanical fault. Sole in-charge of the petrol pump was respondent No. 4/5. Under oral direction and under pressure of respondent No. 4/5, petitioner looked after transaction of petrol pump, whereas he was not having any experience of 3 keeping books of account in respect of transaction of petrol pump. He performed his duty honestly. (b) Vide communication dated 23-3-2014 (Annexure P-3) and 4- 9-2014 (Annexure P-5), respondent No. 4/5 informed him that, upon physical verification of books of account of petrol pump, deficiency of Rs. 30,47,345.91/- and Rs. 27,23,659.00 respectively was found and he was directed to deposit said amount. Under pressure, the petitioner deposited Rs. 8 lacs twice. Vide communication dated 7-9-2015 (Annexure P-6), respondent No. 4/5 informed that as per audit report of petrol pump, during in- charge period of petitioner i.e. from 12-6-2011 to 7-4-2014, deficiency of Rs. 80,49,387.34/- has been found in account books, therefore, he was directed to submit explanation. Vide Annexure P-7 dated 8-9-2015. (c) The petitioner submitted his explanation stating that he was unknown about functioning of petrol pump and, therefore, he had refused to perform duty there, further, he has not committed any theft or mistake and due to such allegation of huge embezzlement, he has been highly upset. (d) Despite that, respondent No. 3/Superintendent of Police, Raipur issued show cause notice/adjustment notice (Annexure P- 1) dated 11-9-2015 stating inter alia that, on being audited the account books of petrol pump from firm of Chartered Accountant during the period of 12-6-2011 to 7-4-2014, deficit of Rs. 4 80,49,387.34/- has been found, as such, he was directed to clarify his position and ensure adjustment. Reply vide Annexure P-8 dated 14-9-2015 was submitted by the petitioner, claiming himself to be innocent. But, without considering reply of petitioner, respondent No. 3 passed impugned order (Annexure P-2) dated 16-11-2015 directing deduction of Rs. 10,000/- per month from his salary, which continuously deducted from his salary. (e) Challenging aforesaid show cause/adjustment notice (Annexure P-1) dated 11-9-2015 and recovery order (Annexure P- 2) dated 16-11-2015 issued by the respondent No. 3/ Superintendent of Police, Raipur, During such recovery, on 29-2- 2024, the petitioner retired from the post of Sub Inspector (Mechanic), but because of said show cause notice/adjustment notice (Annexure P-1), recovery notice (Annexure P-2) and allegation of embezzlement, his retiral dues have been withheld. 3. In the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge has observed as under:- “ 22. Admittedly, in instant case, as has been observed hereinabove, neither any departmental proceeding nor any judicial proceeding (criminal case) was initiated or pending against the petitioner on the date of his retirement i.e. 29-2-2024, therefore, withholding of pension and gratuity of the petitioner, is not found to 5 be valid in view of above judgment rendered by the Apex Court and further in view of Rule 9 and Rule 64 of the Rules, 1976. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for full pension and gratuity payable to him on the date of his retirement. In that view of the matter, the respondents are also unjustified in withholding the amount of leave encashment, GPF, GIS etc. of the petitioner, which otherwise he is entitled for. 23. In view of above discussion, both the petitions are allowed. Show cause notice/adjustment notice dated 11-9-2015 (Annexure P-1 in WPS No. 8586/2019) and recovery order dated 16-11-2015 (Annexure P-2 in WPS No. 8586/2019) issued by the respondent No. 3/Superintendent of Police, Raipur, District Raipur are quashed. Respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner the amount of full pension and all retiral dues i.e. gratuity, leave encashment, GPF and GIS etc. within a period of 45 days from today in accordance with law. Petitioner is also entitled to get interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of his retirement till date of actual payment of outstanding amount. Respondents are further directed to refund to the petitioner the amount recovered from him against 6 said show cause notice/adjustment notice Annexure P- 1 and recovery order Annexure P-2 along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum till its final payment. 24. It is made clear that, this order will not preclude the respondent authorities to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. 25. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed to the above extent. 4. The writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/State reiterating the same plea challenging the order dated 14.02.2025 passed in WPS No. 3137 of 2024 and stating that there is no violation of Rule 16 of the C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and by consenting for deduction of amount from salary itself amounts to admission of the misconduct by the respondent/ writ petitioner. 5. (i) Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the respondent herein took charge of Shourya (Police) Petrol Pump, Raipur on 11-6-2011 and worked there from 12-6-2011 to 7-4- 2014. On physical verification of transaction/accounts of petrol pump conducted by appellants on 23-3-2014 and 8-4-2014, deficiency of Rs. 30,47,345.91 and Rs. 27,23,659.00/- respectively was found. Upon explanation being sought for adjustment of the aforesaid amount, the respondent herein gave his consent vide 7 letter dated 27-10-2015, to deposit the amount in installment of Rs. 10,000/- per month and he himself deposited Rs. 8,60,000 in installments, which itself establish the fact that he has embezzled the amount. (ii) He would further submit that, conduct of respondent herein with regard to embezzlement of huge amount was reported to the concerned authority, thereafter, as per direction of concerned authority accounts of the petrol pump were got audited from chartered accountant firm namely VBM and Company, Raipur and in that audit of financial year 2011-12 to 2014-15, when the respondent herein was in-charge of the petrol pump, total deficit amount of Rs. 1,01,26,623.34/- was reported by the said Chartered Accountant firm, against which, a sum of Rs. 8,20,000/- was deposited by the respondent herein. As per direction of concerned authority a preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer/Dy. Superintendent of Police, Police Head Quarter, Raipur and in that inquiry, statement of respondent herein and other employees of petrol pump were recorded. (iii) Learned counsel would submit that after inquiry, inquiring officer submitted preliminary inquiry report, wherein the respondent herein was found guilty of embezzlement of government fund of Rs. 80,23,666.34/-. Therefore, contention of learned counsel for the respondent herein is incorrect that, without 8 any inquiry or opportunity being provided to the respondent herein, said recovery order has been made and retiral dues have been withheld. The impugned order of recovery of deficit amount from the respondent herein is minor penalty under Rule 10 of the CCA Rules, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in issuing the impugned recovery order and withholding retiral dues of the respondent herein. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. (A) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that, during said period i.e. 12-6-2011 to 7-4-2014, he was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector (Mechanic) in police line, but under oral instruction of appellant No. 4, he performed duty at the petrol pump, he was not in-charge of the petrol pump, rather, appellant No. 4 was in-charge of the petrol pump and under his oral instruction, sometimes, he used to look after the work of transaction of petrol pump, that too, under supervision of appellant No. 4, else, at that period, his main duty was to look after mechanical fault of the petrol pump. Even otherwise, since he was not acquainted with the accountancy work or having account training, therefore, he could not have performed the duty of maintaining account book of transaction of petrol pump. In the month of April, 2014, he was removed from petrol pump and under oral instruction, he was performing his duty at Police Line, M.T. 9 branch. (B) Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that, since initial explanation, the respondent was showing his innocence and he has specifically stated that, neither he has committed any theft nor any wrongful act in the petrol pump. Despite that, he was compelled to deposit huge amount, as such, he has deposited Rs. 8 lacs under threat and pressure as authorities did not consider his explanation. It is further submitted that without conducting any departmental inquiry or any criminal proceeding, respondent has been leveled allegation of embezzlement of more than one crore rupees and has been compelled to make adjustment of amount. Learned counsel further submitted that, even as per the preliminary inquiry report, the respondent has denied allegation of said embezzlement in his deposition, despite that, without any inquiry or criminal proceeding, impugned order of recovery has been made, huge amount has been recovered from the respondent and his retiral dues have also been withheld. Though after the order passed by this Court on 30-8-2024, 50% amount of pension, gratuity and leave encashment has been paid to the respondent. (C) Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that without any proper inquiry or criminal proceeding, making huge recovery from him and withholding his retiral dues are against the 10 CG Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (henceforth, referred to as ‘CCA Rules’) and CG Civil Services (Pension), Rules, 1976 (henceforth, referred to ‘Rules, 1976’), hence it is prayed that, the writ appeal be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded
Decision
by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition that, without any inquiry or criminal proceeding and even prior to obtaining any preliminary inquiry report, impugned show cause notice dated 11-9-2015 and recovery order dated 16-11-2025 have been issued by the Superintendent of Police, Raipur and directed for adjustment/recovery of huge amount of Rs. 80,49,387.34/- from the salary of respondent only at the behest of said consent dated 27-10-2025 submitted by the respondent, whereas contents of consent dated 27.10.2025, itself shows that, the respondent has not unequivocally admitted the allegation, rather he has denied the allegation and stated that he has not committed any mistake. Having considered such ambiguous admission of the respondent and further considering his oral explanation, in which, he has stated that he has not committed any theft or any wrong in the petrol pump, such recovery order ought to have been made after 11 conducting due departmental inquiry and also other legal proceeding, as has been recommended by the inquiry officer in belated preliminary inquiry report dated 29-1-2018. 9. Further as the contention of the appellants is that the recovery of deficit amount from the respondent is a minor penalty under Rule 10 of the CCA Rules. 10. Careful perusal of the Rule 10 of the CCA Rules shows that punishment of recovery from salary, whole or part, of any pecuniary loss caused by the employee to the government, is minor penalty, and can be imposed on any government servant only after informing him under Rule 16(1)(a) of the CCA Rules, in writing, of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior, on which, it is proposed to be taken, and after giving him a reasonable opportunity to make such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal. 11. Reverting to the facts of the instant case in the light of the aforesaid proposition, it is quite vivid that in the instant case, only on the basis of order dated 11-9-2015, seeking clarification with regard to deficit of amount of the petrol pump and directing him for adjustment of the amount and in pursuance thereof, consent by denying allegation dated 27-10-2015 was submitted by the respondent. The letters annexed as Annexure P-1 in the writ petition cannot be construed as a proposal to take action against the respondent with regard to imputation of misconduct, as 12 provided in Section 16(a) of the CCA Rules and only in the light of said consent in form of denial of allegation submitted by the respondent, the order dated 16-11-2015 has been passed by the Superintendent of Police, Raipur holding him guilty of embezzlement of Rs. 80,49,387.34/- and directed for adjustment of the same by deducting Rs. 10,000/- per month from the salary of respondent, which is contrary to the well settled principles of law as show cause notice/ adjustment notice dated 11-9-2015 would not amount to proposal to take action against the delinquent and it would also not amount to serving of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour on which action is proposed to be taken under Rule 16(1)(a) of the CCA Rules and there is complete non -compliance of Rule 16(1)(a) of the said Rules, as no opinion has been recorded by the disciplinary authority that, as to why, inquiry is not necessary, taking alleged consent dated 27-10-2015 submitted by the respondent under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under Clause (b), into consideration. Though in instant case, preliminary inquiry was conducted and report dated 29-1-2018 (Annexure R-4) was submitted, but as per that inquiry report itself, the respondent has denied the allegation of embezzlement of said amount. 12. So far as withholding of pension, and retiral dues i.e. gratuity etc. is concerned, it is settled preposition of law that, right to receive pension by the employee has been recognized by Hon’ble 13 Apex Court as right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in the case of Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar [1971) 2 SCC 330], 13. As in the instant case, as has been observed hereinabove, neither any departmental proceeding nor any judicial proceeding (criminal case) was initiated or pending against the respondent on the date of his retirement i.e. 29-2-2024, therefore, withholding of pension and gratuity of the respondent, is not found to be valid in view of above judgment rendered by the Apex Court and further in view of Rule 9 and Rule 64 of the Rules, 1976. Therefore, the respondent is entitled for full pension and gratuity payable to him on the date of his retirement. In that view of the matter, the appellants are also unjustified in withholding the amount of leave encashment, GPF, GIS etc. of the respondent, which otherwise he is entitled for. 14. In view of foregoing, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error, warranting interference of this Court. 15. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ $ Bhilwar