Ramdev Patel Vs Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation

Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation through it’s Managing Director, Head Office, Village Jhanj, Sector, 24, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Manager (Personnel/Commercial/Technical), Recovery Officer, State Warehousing Corporation, Head Office, Village Jhanj, Sector-24, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

------Non-applicants

¶12

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶13

For Applicant : Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, Advocate For Non-applicants : Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocate

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

11.07.2025

¶17

1. This MCC is filed for modification of the order dated 29.01.2025 passed in WPS No.514 of 2025 by this Court with the following prayer:-

¶18

“In view of above, it is most respectfully prayed with this honourable Court, to kindly

¶19

2

¶20

modify the order dated 29.01.2025 by kindly including suitable direction to the respondents regarding release of retiral benefits of the petitioner with interest @ 12% payable from the date of retirement, in the larger interest of justice. ”

¶21

2. By the impugned order dated 29.01.2025, the recovery order was quashed as without there being any departmental enquiry, order of recovery for loss of paddy was passed and Rs.3,38,309,00/was directed to be recovered stating that Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation has been suffered loss of the aforesaid amount.

¶22

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in an identical petition, this Court has passed an order dated 29.01.2025, by which in similar circumstance, this Court had directed the authorities to release and disburse the retiral dues payable to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, as such looking to the similarity of the petition, same order was required to be passed. Therefore, modification to the extent for releasing of retiral benefits with applicable interest may be granted to the petitioner.

¶23

4. Upon issuance of the notice, the learned counsel appeared for the non-applicants before this Court and submits that at that relevant point of time, the enquiry could not be concluded as such, concerned file had been requisitioned by the Anti

¶24

3

¶25

Corporation Bureau (in short ‘ACB’)/Economic Office Wing (in short ‘EOW’) and the enquiry is still pending with the ACB/EOW, hence, the applicant cannot seek retiral benefits before conclusion of the enquiry by the ACB and EOW. Reliance has been placed to Chapter IV (Discipline), particularly Rules 21 and 22 of the Rules of Conduct for the Employees for buttress his submissions.

¶26

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as order dated 29.01.2025, for which modification was sought for by the applicant.

¶27

6. Relevant portion of the Rules 21 and 22 of the Rules of Conduct for the Employee are as under:-

¶28

2. All employees are bound to serve the Corporation faithfully and to the best of their ability. No employee shall associate himself or take an active part in any political matter or in any political demonstration.

¶29

6. An employee shall not approach or prefer an appeal (except as provided herein) or represent personally to any director for any matter concerning his service. Nothing in this sub-regulation shall be deemed to prohibit an employee from making any legitimate

¶30

4

¶31

representation concerning his service to the Managing Director in his official capacity.

¶32

22. Imposition of Penalties -

¶33

1. Any employee committing a breach of the regulations of the Corporation or being guilty of negligence, inefficiency or indolence in performance of his duties or knowingly doing anything detrimental to the interests of the Corporation or in conflict with its instructions or committing a breach of discipline or being guilty of any other act of Misdemeanour or is convicted of a criminal office shall be liable to be following penalties-

¶34

(a) Fine

¶35

(b) Censure

¶36

(c) Delay or stoppage of increments or promotions.

¶37

(d) Reduction to a lower post in his permanent class or to a lower stage in his incremental scale.

¶38

(e) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by the employee.

¶39

(f) Removal

¶40

(g) Dismissal

¶41

Provided that the penalty of fine shall be imposed on employees of class IV only.”

¶42

7. It is an admitted position that till date in any enquiry, it was not found that the applicant is guilty of his conduct or he is liable to pay loss suffered by the Ware Housing Corporation.

¶43

5

¶44

8. It is tried law that unless and until any person is held guilty, his service benefits i.e., pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other benefit cannot be withheld. In the present case, the applicant is retired from service and as such, his retiral dues cannot be stayed only on the basis of fact that some enquiry by the ACB/EOW is going on. Further, this Court in an identical matter i.e. WPS Nos. 4103 of 2021, 4326 of 2021 and 6488 of 2021 has held as follows :-

¶45

“ 18. Applying the law laid-down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases to the factual matrix of the present case, it is quite vivid that CCA Rules, 1966 are applicable to the petitioners. There is no express provision incorporated in the said Rules authorizing the Corporation to continue the disciplinary proceedings after the employee concerned superannuates from service, as such, there is no enabling provision in the relevant rules (CCA).

¶46

19. The inevitable consequence of absence of such an enabling provision in the CCA Rules, 1966 would be that the Corporation is denude of its authority to continue the disciplinary proceedings after the petitioners stood superannuated from Corporation employment and show cause notices dated 21.05.2021 & 22.09.2021 and article of charges dated 17.06.2021 & 12.10.2021 issued by respondent No.2 against the

¶47

6

¶48

respective petitioners deserve to be and are hereby quashed.

¶49

20. Now coming to WPS No.4103 of 2021 filed by the petitioner-R.K. Pandey for payment of retiral dues. Since disciplinary the proceeding initiated against the petitioners, including charge-sheet and show-cause notices have already been set aside by this Court, therefore, the authorities are directed to release and disburse the retiral dues payable to the petitioners. This exercise shall be concluded by respondent authorities preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. ”

¶50

9. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is apparent that after the superannuation of the applicant, the enquiry has not been concluded to its logical end, and no final order has been passed till date. Hence, after retirement, the enquiry cannot be continued against the applicant. As such, the applicant is entitled to his retiral benefits.

¶51

10. Accordingly, while modifying the order dated 29.01.2025, the authorities concerned are directed to release the retiral dues of the applicant, i.e., pension, gratuity, leave encashment, and other benefits, within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. However, it is made clear that if, during investigation by the ACB/EOW or any other concerned investigating agency, anything is found against the applicant, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.

¶52

7

¶53

11. With these observations/directions, the instant MCC for modification of the order dated 29.01.2025 stands disposed of.

¶54

Sd/-d/(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶55

Yogesh

Ramdev Patel v. Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdev Patel v. Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Uttara Bai Vs Smt. Mala Kaushik

Chhanulal Dhivar Vs Ramprasad Barmate

Heera Vs Pravesh Choudhary

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. D. Vijya

Laxminarayan Bhave Vs Mohan

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Tilkunwar Bai