Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – April 2, 2025: In a landmark judgment, the
at Bilaspur has quashed a recovery order issued against a retired police employee, Suresh Singh, and directed the state authorities to release his withheld retiral dues, including pension, gratuity, and other benefits. The court ruled that recovering substantial amounts based on allegations of embezzlement and withholding retiral benefits without conducting a proper departmental inquiry or judicial proceeding is illegal and violates established service rules and pension regulations.
Case Background and Legal Question in withholding Retiral Dues
The case stemmed from two writ petitions filed by Suresh Singh, a retired Sub-Inspector (Mechanic) in the Chhattisgarh Police Department. WPS No. 8586 of 2019 challenged recovery orders issued in 2015, demanding an adjustment of over ₹80 lakh allegedly embezzled during his tenure at a police petrol pump. WPS No. 3137 of 2024 sought the release of his retiral dues, which had been withheld due to these allegations.
Singh, who was initially appointed as a Constable (Mechanic) in 1982, was assigned duties at the ‘Shourya Petrol Pump’ in Raipur from 2011 to 2014 under oral instructions. He claimed he lacked experience in handling petrol pump transactions and was merely following the directives of his superiors. The department alleged a significant deficiency in the petrol pump’s accounts during Singh’s tenure and issued recovery notices without initiating a formal departmental inquiry or criminal proceedings.
The central legal question before the High Court was whether the state could recover alleged embezzlement amounts and withhold retiral dues based on mere allegations, without due process of law and in the absence of any departmental or judicial proceedings to substantiate the claims.
Arguments Presented
Petitioner’s Counsel: Advocate Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, representing Singh, contended that the recovery orders and withholding of retiral dues were unlawful and violated principles of natural justice. He emphasized that Singh was a mechanic, not trained in accountancy, and was assigned petrol pump duty under oral instructions. Singh consistently denied embezzlement and argued that the recovery was enforced without any proper inquiry, violating the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, and Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.
State’s Counsel: Advocate Rajeev Bharat, representing the State, contended that an audit and a preliminary inquiry had revealed a deficit, and Singh had even consented to deductions from his salary, implying an admission of guilt. They argued that the recovery was a minor penalty under Rule 10 of the CCA Rules and thus permissible.
Court’s Analysis and Legal Precedents
Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi meticulously examined the case, noting the lack of formal orders assigning Singh in-charge duties at the petrol pump. The court highlighted that the preliminary inquiry report itself mentioned Singh’s denial of embezzlement. Crucially, the court emphasized that despite allegations of a massive financial deficit, no departmental inquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules or criminal proceedings were initiated against Singh.
The judgment cited several key legal precedents:
- Ku. Shailja R. Jeswani v. State of M.P. (2000) – A mere notice cannot be construed as a proposal for disciplinary action under CCA Rules.
- Lal Audhraj Singh Lal Rampratap Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1967) – Affirmed that an employee must be informed of specific allegations and supporting material before disciplinary action.
- Union of India v. C.P. Singh (2004) – Stressed the need for a reasoned decision on whether a formal inquiry is necessary.
- Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar (1971) – Established pension as a right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution.
- State of W.B. v. Haresh C. Banerjee (2006) – Reaffirmed pension as a constitutional right under Article 300A.
The court emphasized that Rule 16(1)(a) of the CCA Rules prohibits imposing any penalty without serving a charge sheet and giving the employee a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves. Additionally, Rule 9 and Rule 64 of the CG Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, state that withholding retiral benefits is only permissible if departmental or judicial proceedings are pending, which was not the case here.
Court’s Decision and Implications
Justice Chandravanshi allowed both writ petitions, quashing the recovery orders dated September 11, 2015, and November 16, 2015. The court directed the respondents to release Singh’s full pension and all retiral dues within 45 days, along with interest at 8% per annum from the date of retirement until actual payment. Additionally, the recovered amounts were ordered to be refunded with 8% interest.
Pivotal Excerpt from the Judgment:
“In view of the above discussion, it is evidently clear that, without any inquiry or criminal proceeding, and even prior to obtaining any preliminary inquiry report, the impugned show cause notice dated 11-9-2015 and recovery order dated 16-11-2015 have been issued by the respondent No. 3/Superintendent of Police, Raipur, which is contrary to the principles of law... and there is complete non-compliance of Rule 16(1)(a) of the said Rules.”
The court clarified that this order would not prevent authorities from initiating lawful proceedings against Singh in the future if necessary. This judgment underscores the importance of due process in disciplinary proceedings and the protection of employees’ retiral rights, reinforcing that recovery and withholding of benefits cannot be arbitrary or without proper legal and procedural basis.
The judgement in SURESH SINGH vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – 2025 Supreme(Online) (CHH) 299 sets a significant precedent for public sector employees, reaffirming that retiral benefits cannot be withheld without following proper legal procedures. It serves as a strong reminder that due process and fair inquiry are indispensable in cases of alleged financial misconduct in government services.
