Change 7 Officer, residenf of Shan‘ri Nagar‘, Raipur‘. Vs RESPONDENTS: w“ 1 Sfafe of Chha’r’risgar‘h, ’rhr‘ough The Sgcr‘e’rary, Depar‘rmen’r of Agriculfure, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Secre'rar‘ia‘r, Raipur‘. .The Direcfor‘, DeparTmenT of AgricuHur'e, Indira Gandhi AgricuITur‘e UniversiTy Campus, Labhandi, Raipur (CG) . The Join’r Direcfor, AgricuH‘ur’e, Division, Raipur (CG). . The Depufy DirecTor, Agriculfur‘e, Collec‘rorafe Building, Raj nandgaon (CG) Shr‘i I.C. Shrivasfava, fhe ’rhen Assisfam‘ Soil Conserva‘rion Officer, Rajnandgaon, Through The Depu’ry Direcfor‘, Aiéricui’rur‘e, Collec‘ior‘afe Building, Rajnandgaon (CG) Raipur‘ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIseARH AT BILAsPUR WRIT PETITION [s] No. E34 Q /2oo9 / G.P. Srivas, son of La’re H.P. Srivas, aged 63 year‘s, Refir‘ed Assisfam‘ Soil Conserva’rion PETITIONER: WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 6/227 OF THE (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Ms Sharmiia Singhai, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR " WRIT PETlTlON (S) NO. 344 OF 2009 ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 22nd day of March, 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. By this petition, the petitioner seeks qUashment of charge sheet and the show cause notice dated 1-7—2008 (Annexure — P/3). The petitioner also prays that the respondent authorities may be restrained from continuing with the departmental enquiry proceedings. The facts, in brief, which are germane for disposal of the case, are that initially the petitioner was appointed as Agriculture Development Officer in the year 1972 and thereafter he got several promotions and the petitioner retired from the service on 31—3-2006 on attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Assistant Soil Conservator Officer. At the time of retirement, the respondent department issued a certificate in favour of the petitioner. il‘ ,,, ,l t PETITIONER G.P. Srivas Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others jag“) stating that no departmental enquiry is pending against the petitioner. On the basis of the same, the petitioner obtained all of his retiral dues and also getting the pension regularly. However, after lapse of about 21/2 years from the date of his retirement, the petitioner received a show cause notice dated 1-7—2008 along with the charge sheet whereby the respondent authorities have taken a decision to initiate departmental enquiry proceedings against the petitioner. Thus, this petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities have no authority to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner, as he had already retired from the service much prior to the date of issuance of show cause notice and the charge sheet. The enquiry proceedings are commenced on the basis of enquiry report submitted by a person who has no authority to conduct enquiry. For initiation of departmental enquiry sanction of the Governor is mandatory, but in the present case the same has not been obtained. Contradicting the contentions of the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the State supports the impugned action of the respondent authorities. The enquiry proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner in accordance with the prescribed rules and after obtaining prior sanction‘of the Governor. The departmental enquiry . has been initiated against the petitioner in respect of an Em event which took place prior to expiry of four years, as the misconduct alleged against the petitioner is of the year 2005-06. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 6. The Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short “the Rules, 1976") provides for grant ' of pension and other retiral benetits to the pensionable employees. 7. Rule 9 (2) (a) of the Rules, 1976 provides that the departmental proceedings, 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 set'Vlce. 8. Sub-rule (2) (a) of the Rule 9 of the Rules, 1976 reads as under: 9. Right of Governor to withhold or withdraw pension. (2) (a) the departmental proceedings, 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 servrce. u! 7,. 1. ’//, :f Q‘i,.,, “ A; 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.” in the event, if the departmentai proceedings have not been instituted when the Government servant was in service, sub-rule (2) (b) prescribes that the same shall not be instituted, except under the provisions of Iaw. Sub—rule (2) (b) (i) & (ii) read as under : “(i) shail 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.” 10. Thus, there are two restrictions for instituting departmental proceedings against the Government servant after his retirement e.g. firstly; the departmental proceedings may be initiated with the sanction of the Governor; and secondly; there shall not be any departmental proceedings if the event has taken place four years before the institution of departmental proceedings. 11. The interpretation of Rule 9 (2) (b) (i) of the Rules, 1976 came into consideration before the Supreme Court in State of M.P. and Others v. Dr. Yashwant Trimbak1. ln the said decision the Supreme Court observed as under: 14. The Rule in question no doubt provides that departmental proceedings if not instituted while the government HI TI. l 1 (1996),2 'SCC 305 I servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shali not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor. The question that arises for consideration is whether it requires the sanction of the‘ Governor himself or the Council» of Ministers in whose favour the Governor under the Rules of Business has allocated the matter, can also sanction. lt is Undisputed that under Article 166(3)‘ of the Constitution the Governor has made rule for convenient transaction of the business of the Government and the question of sanction to prosecute in the case in hand was dealt with by the Council of Ministers in accordance with the Rules of Business. Under Article 154 of the Constitution, the executive power of the State vests in the Governor and is exercised by him either directly or through ofticers subordinate to him in accordance with the Constitution. The expression “executive power" is wide enough to connote the residue of the governmental function that remains after the legislative and judicial functions are taken away. 17. The order of sanction for prosecution of a retired ‘g’overnment servant is undoubtedly an executive action of the Government. A Governor in exercise of his owers under Article 166(3) of the Cons itution may allocate all his functions to different Ministers by framing rules of business except those in which the Governor is required by the Constitution to exercise his own discretion. The ex ression “business of the Government o the State" in Article 166(3) of the Constitution, comprises functions which the Governor rs to exercise with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers including those which he is empowered to exercise on his subjective satisfaction and including statutory functions of the State Government. The Court has held In Godavari Shamrao Parulekar v. State of Maharashtra that even the functions and duties which are vested in a State Government allocated to Ministers by a statute b the ma RuPe/s be of Sonabati Kumari, where power of issuing notification Land Reforms under Act Section 1956 3 1) have of the Bihar been conferred on the Governor of Bihar, this Court held: u‘ ,.. ,. :Aq 3 ‘Section 3(1) of the Act confers the power of issuing notmcations under it, not on any officer but on the State Government as such though the exercise of that power would be governed by the rules of business framed by the Governor under Article 166(3) of the Constitution.’ 18 Therefore excepting the matters wit'h respect to’ which the Governor is required by or under the Constitution to act in his discretion the ‘personal satisfaction of the G'overnor is not required and any function may be allocated to Ministers. 19 Mr Jain’s contention is solely based on'the ground that in the Rule itself both the expressions ‘Governor’ and ‘Government' have been used and therefore the expression “sanction of the the Governor" personal in Rule sanction 9‘(2) (b2 o g)he would Governor. mean We are unable to accept this contention. The power to sanction is nothing but an executive action of the Government provided under the Rules. This is not a matter with respect to which the Governor is required under the Constitution to act in his discretion In this view of the matter when the Governor has framed Rules of Constitution Business. under allocating Article his func 166$) Ions of and the it is the Council of Ministers which has taken the decision to sanction prosecution of the res ondent we see no legal infirmity in t e same. The Tribunal erred in iaw In coming to the conclusion that the sanction required under the rule is a sanction of the Governor.” 12. Thus, the order dated 12-6-2008 issued by the Under Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Chhattisgarh by order of the Governor, is sufficient compliance of the provisions of Rule 9 (2) (b) (i) of the Rules, 1976. 13. The law is well settled by a series of‘decisions that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show cause notice, as the show cause notice or charges'heet does notgive rise to / any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. (See Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singhz, Special Directdr v. Mohd. Gulam Ghousea, Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore", State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma5 and Union of India and Another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayanas.) 14. There is no dispute that the event for which departmental proceedings was initiated, has not taken place beyond four years within the date of initiation of departmental proceedings. Thus, the challenge of the petitioner on this ground also fails. Applying the well settled principles of law and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove; the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 16. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/— V Satish K. Agnihctri '15. Gowri s Judge 2 (1996) 1 SCC 327 I 3 (2004) 3 SCC 440 4 (2001) 10 SCC 639 5 (1 987) 2 SCC 179 e (2006) 12 SCC 28 I x/A