Afr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:26428 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7367 of 2023 1 - Smt. Smita Shrivastav W/o Late Rajesh Kumar Shrivastav Aged About 60 Years R/o L.62, Shivnath Colony, Raipur Naka Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation Through Secretary, Head Office Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, Head Office Sector-4, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Karmik Prabandhak Chhattisgarh Ware Housing Corporation Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate and Mr. Anuroop Pandy, Advocate for their respective respondents
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 20/06/2025 1. An unfortunate widow is seeking the indulgence of this Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction in the present matter. After the 2 death of her husband, the respondents are illegally recovering an amount of Rs. 13,86,452/- in respect of a shortage of paddy, and that too on 10.06.2022 i.e. on the fag end of his service, when the husband of the petitioner was going to retire on 31.07.2022. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be directed the respondent to provided the retiral dues with 10% interest of the Husband of petitioner to the petitioner without making any further delay in view of the fact that he retire from her service 31.07.2022. 10.2 That, any other relief which ther Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the Husband of petitioner in the interest of justice along with cost of the petition.” 3. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the husband of petitioner, Late Rajesh Kumar Shrivastav, was employed as an Assistant Manager (Technical) with the respondent department, i.e., Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, and had served diligently throughout his tenure without receiving any adverse remarks. Vide order dated 04.05.2022, it was officially communicated to him that his date of superannuation would be 31.07.2022, and necessary instructions were issued to the concerned Director to ensure the disbursal of all retiral dues. However, unexpectedly, on 11.07.2022, he received a show-cause notice dated 10.06.2022 (Annexure-P/2), alleging his responsibility for shortages in food grain during periods between 3 2003 and 2016, including specific spans such as 01.03.2003 to 26.09.2006, 05.10.2006 to 11.10.2006, and others, along with Vehement Charges. These allegations were made under Chapter 4 of the Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962. It is notably surprising that no such allegations were ever communicated to him prior to his scheduled retirement, leading to the inference that the notice was an afterthought to deprive him of his rightful retiral benefits. In response, he promptly requested relevant documents to file an appropriate reply, but the department failed to provide any such information. Instead, a charge-sheet was issued on 14.07.2022 without even listing names of witnesses. On 18.07.2022, he again communicated his inability to respond effectively in the absence of necessary documentation. Subsequently, the department initiated a departmental inquiry, appointing Ramkishore Mishra as the Enquiry Officer and Ram Lochan Kashyap as the Presenting Officer. Nevertheless, under compulsion, he submitted a reply on 22.07.2022 along with minutes of relevant meetings that clarified procedures related to food grains shortages. Despite this, no further inquiry actions took place before his retirement on 31.07.2022. Following his retirement, he submitted a representation on 17.08.2022 seeking release of his retiral dues, but the department failed to comply. Tragically, on 20.09.2022, he passed away. Thereafter, the petitioner, being his widow, approached the Hon’ble Court seeking the release of retiral dues. 4 The Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 01.03.2023, directed the respondent to consider the claim of petitioner in accordance with law and to disburse the undisputed retiral dues expeditiously through a reasoned order. In response, vide communication dated 29.05.2023, the department disbursed Employee Provident Fund dues only up to March 2020, amounting to 13,86,452/- and ₹ assured that the remaining PF, interest, and gratuity would be paid after due calculations. However, as of date, the respondent has failed to release the remaining PF, gratuity, leave encashment, and other retiral benefits, prompting the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent-State Warehousing Corporation in withholding the retiral dues of her deceased husband is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and without the sanction of law. The husband of petitioner, having honorably retired from service, is entitled to receive all terminal benefits such as gratuity, provident fund, leave encashment, and other admissible dues without undue delay or condition. There exists no provision under the applicable service rules of the Warehousing Corporation that permits the continuation or initiation of departmental proceedings after the date of superannuation. The reliance placed by respondent Department on Rule 9 of the Pension Rules is wholly misplaced, as the said rules are not applicable to the employees of the Warehousing Corporation, which is a statutory body governed by its own Conduct, Discipline, 5 and Appeal (CDA) Rules, and not the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules or any other general pensionary framework applicable to Government servants. Therefore, in absence of a specific enabling clause in the governing rules, the respondent is denuded of all authority to proceed against the husband of petitioner after his retirement. It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire premise of the action of respondent rests on alleged shortages that are said to have occurred during the extended period from 2003 to 2016, but it is a matter of record that at no point during this extensive period was any notice, charge-sheet, or memorandum of charges ever issued to the husband of petitioner, nor was any inquiry conducted. Astonishingly, it was only in the month of his retirement that a show cause notice was first issued, clearly suggesting a belated and mala fide attempt to harass the husband of petitioner and obstruct the release of his lawful dues. It is a settled position of law that disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated or continued post-retirement unless the service rules provide for such action, and more importantly, no proceedings can lie or be continued against a deceased person. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even if the alleged shortages are presumed for the sake of argument, the same pertain to dryage or storage losses of agricultural commodities like paddy, which are governed by norms issued by the Central Government and other statutory guidelines, under which a certain percentage of weight loss due to 6 drying is permissible and non-actionable. No evidence has been brought on record by the respondent to demonstrate that the alleged shortages exceeded the permissible limits or were attributable to misconduct or negligence by the husband of petitioner. The husband of petitioner was never served with a charge-sheet, nor was he given an opportunity to respond through a departmental proceeding concluded as per law. Therefore, there exists no finding of guilt, and in such a circumstance, the respondents cannot withhold the retiral dues as a tool of coercion or punishment. He placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210, wherein it has been authoritatively held that retiral dues are a right earned by an employee and cannot be withheld in the absence of a concluded departmental inquiry resulting in a finding of guilt. He further placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dev Prakash Tewari v. U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 260 wherein it has been further clarified that in the absence of a statutory provision authorizing such proceedings post-retirement, any such action is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that this Court has already decided an identical matter involving the same respondent-department, in W.P.S. No. 3967 of 2021 and other connected matters, wherein it was held that disciplinary 7 proceedings cannot be initiated or continued after retirement in the absence of enabling provisions, and that retiral benefits must be paid forthwith. The facts of that case are identical to the present matter, and the principle of consistency in judicial decisions demands that the petitioner receive similar relief. It is an established tenet of service jurisprudence that retiral dues constitute not mere largesse but are the legal and constitutional rights of a retired employee and their family. The continued withholding of such benefits, especially after the death of the employee, causes not only financial hardship but amounts to a continuing breach of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to live with dignity. The petitioner, being the surviving spouse, is entitled to the retiral dues of her husband in full, along with interest on delayed payments. Therefore, in light of the facts and the settled legal position, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to immediately release all pending retiral dues of the husband of petitioner, including but not limited to gratuity, provident fund, leave encashment, and other terminal benefits, with applicable interest, and further be pleased to declare that any departmental proceedings initiated or continued post-retirement and posthumously are without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and would 8 submit that the claims of petitioner are misconceived and devoid of merit in view of the factual and legal position governing the present case. The deceased husband of the petitioner was posted in various branches of the respondent Corporation during his service, namely at Gudhiyari from 1st March 2003 to 26th September 2006, Champa from 5th October 2006 to 11th December 2006, Akaltara from 8th August 2008 to 1st October 2010, and Balod from 13th June 2015 to 19th January 2016. During this tenure, the Corporation suffered financial loss on account of storage shortages reported by its depositors, the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and the Chhattisgarh Civil Supplies Corporation. These losses were assessed in accordance with the guidelines and circulars of State Government, which form the basis for quantifying permissible storage loss in agricultural commodities. Pursuant thereto, the Corporation issued a show- cause notice on 10th June, 2022 to the deceased employee, who is the husband of the petitioner, seeking explanation for the alleged losses. It is submitted that such losses caused during the tenure of the employee are recoverable from his retiral dues, including gratuity and provident fund, as a matter of law to safeguard the financial interests of the Corporation. The petitioner has failed to implead the FCI and the Chhattisgarh Civil Supplies Corporation, which are necessary parties given their direct involvement and role as depositors, thereby rendering the present petition not maintainable. Furthermore, the question of recovery 9 and finalization of liability is still pending before the respondent Corporation, and as a result, the Corporation has lawfully withheld a portion of the retiral dues to ensure that the financial loss can be compensated in due course. It is noteworthy that pursuant to an earlier writ petition (WPS No.229/2023), this Court directed the release of Rs. 13,86,452/- to the petitioner on 1st March, 2023, which has been duly paid. However, as the dispute regarding the storage loss remains unresolved, the Corporation is justified in withholding the remaining dues. The petitioner has neither challenged the show-cause notice nor any charge-sheet, and thus, the reliance on the decision marked Annexure P/11 in a separate case is misplaced and irrelevant to the present facts. Additionally, since the release of part of the retiral dues, the petitioner has not made any formal request or representation for further release, which further evidences the lack of urgency in the matter. Therefore, the respondents prays that the present writ petition be dismissed as not maintainable and that the actions of the respondent Corporation in withholding the retiral dues pending recovery of losses be upheld as lawful, reasonable, and in accordance with the applicable rules and guidelines. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the record. 7. It is undisputed that disciplinary proceedings were initiated vide charge-sheet dated 14.07.2022 without furnishing a list of 10 witnesses. These proceedings remained incomplete and inconclusive as of the date of the employee’s superannuation on 31.07.2022. It is further admitted that the CCA Rules, 1966, applicable to the respondent department, do not contain any provision authorizing continuation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement. 8. In the present case, the employee expired on 20.09.2022, and this petition has been preferred by his widow seeking retiral dues and consequential benefits. A circular dated 17.04.1990 issued by the Madhya Pradesh Personnel Administration, Information, and Training Department also stipulates that the CCA Rules would apply only during service tenure. 9. In the matter of Dev Prakash Tewari Vs. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institution Service Board, Lucknow and others 1 , the judgment rendered in the matter of Bhagirathi Jena Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and others 2 , was followed with approval by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and held that once the concerned employee has retired from service, continuation of disciplinary proceedings is bad in law by observing in paragraph 8 as under :- “8. Once the appellant had retired from service on 31-3-2009, there was no authority vested with the respondents for continuing the disciplinary proceeding 1 (2014) 7 SCC 260 2 (1999) 3 SCC 666 11 even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to get full retiral benefits.” 10. Further, in the case of A. K. S. Rathore (Dead) through Lrs Vs. Union of India 3 , it was held that disciplinary proceedings abate upon the death of the employee, and no final order can be passed against a deceased person. The legal representatives are entitled to the benefits due to the employee, it is relevant to quote Paras 7, 8 and 9 which are reproduced herein below:- “7. Admittedly, no final order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority, before the death of the original appellant. Though the order of remand passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, is dated 02.02.2015, the Disciplinary Authority could not perhaps pass the final order, due to the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court and the pendency of the above appeal before this Court. 8. Today even if we dismiss the above appeal, no final order can be passed in the disciplinary proceedings, against a dead person. The disciplinary proceedings have actually abated. In other words the dismissal of the above appeal the same have consequences as the appeal being allowed. will 9. In view of the above, the above appeal is disposed of holding that the 3 Civil Appeal No.7028 of 2022 decided on 28th of September, 2022. 12
Decision
disciplinary proceedings initiated against the original appellant stand abated. As a consequence, the legal representatives of the original appellant will be entitled to all the benefits that the original appellant would have been entitled to, as per the rules. The respondents may pass orders in accordance with the rules, about the benefits lawfully admissible to the original appellant and disburse the same within a period of 12 weeks. There will be no order as to costs.” 11. In view of the aforesaid binding judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the crystallized legal position as on date is that once an employee ceases to be in service, the departmental enquiry lapses, and disciplinary proceedings are not permissible unless there is a specific provision to that effect in the relevant applicable service rules. Applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court to the factual matrix of the present case, it is evident that no provision exists in the CCA Rules authorizing the respondent department to continue disciplinary proceedings after the superannuation of an employee. As such, there is no enabling provision in the relevant rules permitting such continuation. 12. Consequently, the husband of the petitioner stood superannuated from the respondent department and show-cause notice dated 10.06.2022 and charge-sheet dated 14.07.2022 issued by the respondents against the petitioner are liable to be and is hereby set-aside. 13 13. In view of the above, the respondent department is directed to release and disburse all pending retiral dues payable to the petitioner including but not limited to Provident Fund, Gratuity, Leave Encashment, and any other terminal benefits preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without deducting any amount. 14. The respondent department is directed to release and disburse all pending retiral dues payable to the petitioner, including but not limited to Provident Fund, Gratuity, Leave Encashment, and any other terminal benefits, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of to the extent indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA Saxena