Allowed¶34

Dr. Tohal Sahay Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Aug 2025WPS/1170/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, WPS No. 1170 of 2022, decided 18.08.2025 by Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J. Retired Block Medical Officer; post-retirement departmental enquiry; show-cause notice dated 30.03.2021 quashed for want of Governor's sanction required by Rule 9(2)(b)(i), Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976; direction to release undisputed retiral dues (gratuity/pension); liberty to recommence enquiry per law; alleged amount Rs. 47,96,000/-; Jeevan Deep Samiti.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the show-cause notice / notice of charges dated 30.03.2021 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No. 2; direction to the respondent authorities to pay the undisputed amount of retiral dues to the petitioner; liberty reserved to the respondents to initiate a fresh departmental enquiry strictly in accordance with law.

Dr. Tohal Sahay Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the show-cause notice dated 30.03.2021 initiating departmental enquiry after the petitioner's retirement was invalid for contravention of Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, i.e., for want of the sanction of the Governor. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

Under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, departmental proceedings 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.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The authority issuing the show-cause notice had not obtained the sanction from the competent authority before its issuance; hence the notice was in contravention of Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Rules, 1976.

¶34

Key takeaways

The notice Annexure P/1 dated 30.03.2021 issued by respondent No. 2 is quashed as being in contravention of Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Rules, 1976.ratio¶34
The respondent authorities are directed to make payment of the undisputed amount of retiral dues to the petitioner.ratio¶35
The respondent authorities remain at liberty to initiate a departmental enquiry strictly in accordance with the law, if so advised.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Post-retirement departmental enquiry — sanction of the Governor mandatory. The petitioner, a retired Block Medical Officer, Kusmi (retired 30.04.2020), challenged a show-cause notice dated 30.03.2021 issued by respondent No. 2 to initiate departmental enquiry on the allegation that Rs. 47,96,000/- transferred to the account of Jeevan Deep Samiti was withdrawn and used by him for other purposes. Held: under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, departmental proceedings not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before retirement or during re-employment, shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor; the impugned notice was issued without obtaining such sanction and was therefore in contravention of the Rules. The notice Annexure P/1 dated 30.03.2021 was quashed and the writ petition allowed. The respondents were directed to pay the undisputed amount of retiral dues, with liberty reserved to initiate a fresh departmental enquiry strictly in accordance with law, if so advised.

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.08.19 16:53:57 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:41662

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 1170 of 2022

¶7

Dr. Tohal Sahay Ram S/o Late Suja Ram Aged About 66 Years (Rtrd. Block Medical Officer) R/o Ward No. 2, Durga Chowk, Hospital Para, Kurmi, District Balrampur (Ramanujganjh) Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Director, Health Department, Block-A, 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Collector, District Balrampur (Ramanujganj) Chhattisgarh.

¶13

Chief Medical Officer, Balrampur, District Balrampur (Ramanujganj) Chhattisgarh.

¶14

Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kusmi, District Balrampur (Ramanujganj) Chhattisgarh.

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Verma, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. Government Advocate

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

18.08.2025

¶20

By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶21

“10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 30.03.2021 notice of charges issued by the respondent No. 2.

¶22

10.2 That, the respondents may be directed to release the whole amount of gratuity and pension with interest as early as possible within the prescribed period as decided by this Hon'ble High Court, in the interest of

¶23

¶24

justice.

¶25

10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper according to the facts and circumstances of the case along with the cost of the petitioner. ”

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working on the post of Block Medical Officer, Kusmi, at the relevant time, and he got retired from services on 30.04.2020. He would further submit that a show-cause notice to initiate a departmental enquiry was issued against the petitioner by respondent No. 2 on 30.03.2021 on the ground that while the petitioner was holding the post of Block Medical Officer, Kusmi, an amount of Rs. 47,96,000/- transferred in the account of Jeevan Deep Samiti was withdrawn and used by the petitioner for other purpose. He would also submit that the show-cause notice issued on 30.3.2021 is in contravention of Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short “Rules, 1976”). He would pray to quash the impugned notice dated 30.03.2021.

¶27

On the other hand, Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose. She would submit that the petitioner had committed irregularities, which were detected by the department after the retirement of the petitioner; therefore, a show cause notice to initiate departmental enquiry was issued by the competent authority, and a copy of the notice was referred to the Secretary of the department. She would also submit that the provisions of Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Rules, 1976, were complied with; therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

¶29

Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of Rules, 1976, reads as under:-

¶30

¶31

“9(2)(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment :-

¶32

(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor”

¶33

A bare reading of the above-quoted provision would make it clear that if the departmental proceeding is not instituted while the Government servant was in service before his retirement or during his re-employment, it shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor.

¶34

The show-cause notice Annexure P/1 dated 30.03.2021 would show that the authority has not obtained the sanction from the competent authority before the issuance of the notice to initiate the departmental enquiry, and therefore, the notice is in contravention to the above-quoted rules. Accordingly, the notice Annexure P/1 dated 30.03.2021 issued by respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed. Consequently, this petition is hereby allowed .

¶35

The respondent authorities would be at liberty to initiate a departmental enquiry strictly in accordance with the law, if so advised. Meanwhile, the respondent authorities are directed to make payment of the undisputed amount of retiral dues to the petitioner.

¶36

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶37

$iddhant

Dr. Tohal Sahay Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Tohal Sahay Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Panda Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bhagtu Vs (Deleted), Kana, Through Legal Heir

Rameshwar Prasad Bareth Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Piyush Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Shri Ashutosh Structures Pvt. Ltd. (Previous Name Shri Ashutosh Engineering Industries) Vs Central Board of Trustees

Arun Kumar Pal Vs State of Chhattisgarh