INTHE HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Pctitioner Versus Respondents 1. 2. Wnt Petition (S) No. 2521 of 2008 B. N. Roy, S/Q Late ShriH, K. Koy, s^ed about 62 years, Occupation Retired Govt. Servaat, retired as Engmeer-in-Ghief, pubUc Health Bnguieermg Department, State of Chhattisgarh, R/o 101, Chaaakya Apartm.eut, 1, Abhyanjkar Maig, DhantoU, N^pur -12, MaharashtTa. State of ChhattisgarU, through fhe Secretaiy, Departnient of Public Healfh Eiigmeermg, Mautraiay, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Raipiu-, Chltattisgarh. Engiueer-ui-Cluef, Public Healfb. Engineeriag Department, State of Chhatusgarh, ncar Akashwani Bhawau, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE226/227_OfLTHB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble ShriSatish K. AgnihotriJ.) Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Yashwaat SmghThakur, Deputy Advocate GeneralwithMs Suruta Jain, Paael Lawyer for thc respondents. ORDER (Passed oa this 5th day ofMarch, 2009) 1. The petitiouer, ia ttiis petition ioipugns fhe order d.ated 15.2.2008 (Aiinexure P/17), passed by fhe Respoiideut No. 1, whereby after retireinent of the petitioner departmental enquiiy has been itutiated under the provisions of Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh, Chdl Servlces (Pension) Rules, 1976 (forshort the Rutes, 1976'). 2.;* The brief facts, in. nutshell, as projected by fhe petitioner, are that the petitioner was appoiated on the post ofAssistaat Engmeer on 23.4.1971. WIulc workiug as Eriguieer-in-CIuefin tbe Public Health Engmeermg Department, Stete of Cbliattisgarh, ttie petitioner retired ou attamiag the age of superaiuiuation w.e.f. 28.2.2006. A cttarge sheet was issued on 26.6.2006 (Armexure P/14) for mltiating fc; ^.- departmental enqzury ^ainst the petitioner. Accordiag to fhe cbarge sheet, charge No. 1 aud 2 relates to the periodAugust 1995 to 30.6.1999, whereas the cbarge No,3 relates to the peiiod 12.8.2004 to 28.2.2005. 3. According to Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learaed couiisel appearing fbr ftie petitioner, after retirenient of the petitiouer MSUC ofsuch charge sheet in respect ofchai^e No. 1 and 2 is contraxy to the provisious of Rule 9 (2) (b) (i^ ofthe Cbliattisgarh CivU Services (Pension) Rutes, 1976 (tbr short 'the Rules, I976'),Which provales fhat if Uae departmental proceediugs is not tastrtuted while th.e Govemiaent servant was in service, whether befbre his retu-eiaent or during his re-eiuployinent, the same shall not be in.sti.tuted in respect of any eventwhlch took place luore than four years before such institution. 4. With regard to the charge No.3 he submits that the enquiiy has been concluded and the report has beensubmitted by fhc Chicf Engineer, PubUc Healfh Engiaeering Department, ChhatfegarU, Raipur on 4.1.2007 (page 102 of the writ petition), whereia it is proposed that the matter Daay be dropped after giviag awaming/issue of'cenScr'. 5. Leamed counsel appeariag for fhe pettdoner does not prass any other poiat raised iu the petition, except that the charges No. 1 and 2, which have been. issued after coiupletion of fozu- years fiuin the date of ftie mculent is contrary to the provisions ofRute 9 (2) (b) (u) offhe Rules, 1976. 6. Per contra Shri Yashwant Siagh Thakur, leamed Deputy Advocate General, assteted by Ms Siiaita .Jaia, learaed Paael Lawyer, submits that the petitioner may raise the issue of violation of the provisions ofRule 9 (2) (b) (ii) ofthe Rules, 1976 bcfore the Enquiiy Officer, He would further submit fhat m the explanation subimtted by the BfgiSS!!^, 1 11 J petttioner with regaid to the aUegations/chai^es, this point of violatton of the provisions of Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) of the Rules, 1976 was not raised. 7. I bave heard learaed counsel appearmg for the parties and perused fhe documents appended fh.ereto. 8, Having heard learued couasel appearm^ for the pardes and having regard to flie facts situation of the case, ttus Court is of the considered opinion. that so far as the charges No. 1 and 2, leveUed agaiust the petitioner in the chaqge sheet dated 26.6•'2006 (Aimexure P/14) are conceraed, they are not sustaiaable iu view of the provisions ofRule 9 (2) (b) (u)offtie Rules, 1976. Ttius tbe charges No. 1 aad 2 are quashed. 9. So far as charge No.3 levelled against the petitioner ia the cbaige sheet dated 26.6.2006 (Aruiexure P/14) is concerued the respondents/State are free to proceed with the departmenlal enquiry, iu accordance wifh law, ifso advised. 10. With regard to the gnevaaee of the pctitioner about retiral dues, learaed couusel appearing for the petitioner has not pressed aay other poiat. However, ia ftie iaterest ofjustice it is observed that the petitioner would be at Uberty to inake appropriate representatioa before the concemed aufhority to settle the dispute of retiral benefits, expeditiously. Ifthe grievaace offhe petitioner stUlsubsists, he shall be at Mberty to approach any ofher forum that may be available, ia accordaace with law. 11. The petition is allowed to the extent, iadicated hereia above. No order asto costs. ; —— ^ JSatishK.AgniIiotri ! ~? ••''Judge', ' : ~' \! ^sswt 'TS iSSa