RAMANUJ SHARMA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceeding while he was holding the post of Forester in the Department of Forest. He was subjected to charge-sheet on 18-6-2010 for misconduct. During the pendency of disciplinary proceeding, he retired on 30-11-2010, thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed on 25-11-2011 and on 4-12-2012, an order of recovery was passed against him directing recovery of Rs.38,929/-. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Conservator of Forests who by the impugned order, dismissed the appeal affirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority against which this writ petition has been filed stating inter alia that by virtue of Rule 9 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short "the Rules, 1976"), such a course without any permission from the Governor is impermissible in law and, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law.

(2.) The respondents/State have filed return that departmental enquiry was completed prior to retirement of the petitioner and, therefore, recovery directed by the disciplinary authority is in accordance with law and it has rightly been affirmed by the appellate authority and no interference is called for.

(3.) Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner before his retirement by the disciplinary authority could not be completed while he was in service and it was concluded only after his retirement and on 4-12-2012 i.e. after retirement of the petitioner, the impugned recovery order was passed which is in teeth of Rules 9 (1) and 9 (2) of the Rules, 1976. The course open to the respondent authority was to submit a report to the Governor and final order could not have been passed by the disciplinary authority.