Komal Das Ghritesh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Forest And Climate Change

: Mr. Manish Kumar Saluja, Advocate. For State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiyan, G.A. ... Respondents Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 21/08/2026 Order on Board ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA 18:12:52 +0530

#1. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the impugned charge-sheet dated 26.09.2022 (Annexure P-1) and 2 order dated 10.09.2025 (Annexure P-2) initiating departmental enquiry against the petitioner.

#2. (a) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest under the Forest Department, Government of Chhattisgarh and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2020. Learned counsel submits that despite the petitioner having retired from his service service, a charge-sheet was issued to him on 26.09.2022 in respect of alleged misconduct pertaining to the period from January 2017 to September 2019, when he was serving as Range Officer. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on

31.01.2023. Thereafter, after lapse of more than two years, vide order dated 10.09.2025, the respondents proceeded to initiate a departmental enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The said order was communicated to the petitioner on 19.09.2025. The departmental enquiry was thus initiated approximately five years after the petitioner's retirement and nearly eight years and seven months after the alleged misconduct. (b) Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner was subsequently directed to appear personally before the Enquiry Officer on 24.10.2025. Pursuant to the impugned departmental proceedings, the Enquiry Officer submitted his 3 final enquiry report dated 20.03.2026, which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 21.05.2026. The petitioner was granted fifteen days' time to submit his representation, pursuant to which he submitted his representation/request before the competent authority. Learned counsel further submits that the entire departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner is legally unsustainable, being contrary to Rule 9(2)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. The alleged misconduct pertains to January 2017 to September 2019, while the departmental enquiry was initiated only in September 2025, i.e. after an inordinate and unexplained delay of several years and after the petitioner had already retired. (c) Learned counsel submits that the respondents have placed on record a note-sheet dated 16.09.2022 (Annexure-R/7), wherein it has been stated that prior to initiation of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner, sanction of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State had been obtained. However, neither does the note-sheet bear the signature of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister nor is any official seal affixed thereon. It is, therefore, contended that the document creates a serious doubt as to whether any valid sanction was, in fact, accorded for initiation of the departmental enquiry, and consequently, the said document cannot be relied upon.

#3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State, in its reply/affidavit, 4 submits that as per the official note-sheets available on record, on 09/09/2022 the file was processed and signed by the Secretariat and thereafter on 13/09/2022 and 14/09/2022 the same was duly verified and signed by the Under Secretary and Joint Secretary of the Forest and Climate Change Department. Thereafter, on 15/09/2022 the file was handed to the Special Secretary/Principal Secretary (Forest) and forwarded with an explicit note. On 16/09/2022 the file was signed and passed by the Chief Secretary of the State of Chhattisgarh under Outward No. 2044 and on 19/09/2022 the file was put up before the Hon'ble the then Chief Minister's Secretariat under inward entry No. 703, where Hon'ble the then Chief Minister accorded his permission/approval and thereafter on 22/09/2022 the file was returned with the necessary approvals from the Office of the Hon'ble Chief Minister back to the Chief Secretary and thereafter to the Principal Secretary of Forest Department To demonstrate this fact, copy of the relevant page of the note- sheet is being filed herewith as Annexure A/3. Learned counsel further submits that the file was systematically presented and processed through Coordination as mandated by rules. It is submitted that under standard Secretariat procedure and Rules of Business, a file on which approval of Hon'ble the Chief Minister is sought in coordination, passes through the Chief Secretary who examines the matter before submission. The Chief Secretary's office has recorded 16-09-2022 as 5 receipt date and the office of the Hon’ble Chief Minister has received the same on 19-09-2022 and returned the file back to forest department on 22-09-2022.

#4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents.

#5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner retired from service on

31.08.2020. However, a charge-sheet was issued to him only on 26.09.2022, alleging misconduct pertaining to the period from 2017 to 2019. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 31.01.2023. Thus, the disciplinary process had already been set in motion before the order dated

10.09.2025. The mere fact that the enquiry was subsequently proceeded with after retirement cannot, by itself, render the entire proceedings void, particularly when the competent authority had already considered the matter and the charge- sheet had been served upon the petitioner.

#6. As regards the alleged delay between the period of misconduct and the initiation of the enquiry, the delay by itself is not sufficient to quash the proceedings unless the petitioner demonstrates that such delay has caused specific and substantial prejudice to his defence or has rendered the enquiry incapable of being fairly conducted. In the present case, the petitioner has not demonstrated any specific prejudice occasioned to him on account of the alleged delay. 6 Moreover, the charges relate to the period when the petitioner was holding the post of Range Officer and the departmental authorities, upon consideration of the material available, proceeded to inquire into the allegations.

#7. After perusing the records and affidavit filed by the State, it is manifest that the matter was processed by the concerned officers, including the Under Secretary, Joint Secretary, Special Secretary/Principal Secretary and the Chief Secretary. Thereafter, the file was sent to the Secretariat of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister. The file was received there on

19.09.2022 under Inward Entry No. 703 and was returned on

22.09.2022 after the necessary approval. Therefore, the question of approval cannot be decided only on the basis of the absence of the signature or seal of the Hon'ble Chief Minister on one particular note-sheet. The entire official file and its movement have to be considered. The documents produced by the State show that the file was duly placed before the competent authority and was thereafter returned through the official channel.

#8. It is also noteworthy to mention here that in respect of the alleged misconduct the charge sheet has been issued in the year 2022 i.e. within a period of less than four years from the date of the alleged event took place in the year 2019. Thus, it cannot be said that the action on the part of the authorities is contrary to the provisions of C.G. Civil Services (Pension) 7 Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1976). For the sake of convenience Rule 9(2)(b) of the Rules, 1976 are quoted below which reads as under: "9. Right of Governor to withhold or withdraw pension. - (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 8 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]. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

#9. In these circumstances, this Court find no sufficient ground to accept the petitioner's contention that the departmental enquiry was initiated without the required approval. The official record supports the stand of the State that the necessary approval was obtained before initiation of the departmental proceedings.

#10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge