Chhattisgarh High Court: In an intra-court appeal filed by the State against the impugned order wherein the Single Judge allowed the writ petition of the respondent granting him the entire amount of his gratuity, which had been withheld by the State due to allegations of misappropriation of funds, the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha*, CJ., and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J., dismissed the appeal holding that the Single Judge did not commit any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference as not only was such recovery impermissible in law but also there was no pre-retirement inquiry regarding the alleged misappropriation of funds by the respondent.
Background
The respondent was appointed as an Assistant Revenue Inspector and was posted as Incharge Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Chhuriya. During the financial year 2008-09, an audit was conducted in the Nagar Panchayat. As per the audit report, allegedly, the respondent and two other employees had committed misappropriation of funds of the Nagar Panchayat amounting to Rs. 1.3 Lakhs. A special audit was also conducted wherein it was allegedly found that Rs. 10.14 Lakhs were misappropriated by the respondent and the two other employees. However, no further action was taken, nor was any show-cause notice issued to the respondent. The respondent superannuated as a Revenue Sub Inspector, Class III employee, in 2019.
Thereafter, when the respondent applied for the grant of his retiral dues, including gratuity and pension, the authorities communicated that the gratuity amount of Rs. 6.89 Lakhs was sanctioned, however, Rs. 4.68 Lakhs were withheld, and thus, only Rs. 2.2 Lakhs were paid to the respondent towards gratuity. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition before a Single Judge Bench of this Court. The Single Judge, in B.P. Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh1, vide the impugned order, allowed the writ petition of the respondent. Thus, the present appeal was filed.
Analysis
The Court noted that the Single Judge relied upon the case State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein the Supreme Court held that there are certain situations under which recovery was totally impermissible under law. One of these situations included recovery from the retired employees. The Court stated that the present case was covered by Rafiq Masih (supra). Therefore, on this ground alone, the order of withholding of the gratuity of the respondent after his retirement was impermissible under law.
Regarding the contention that after the respondent’s retirement, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him concerning the audit report, the Court stated that no document was filed by the State. The Court noted that admittedly, before the respondent’s retirement, neither any departmental inquiry was initiated against him nor was any show cause notice issued to him. For the alleged misappropriation of funds done in the financial year 2008-09, no judicial/ criminal proceedings under Rule 9(6)(b)(i) of the Pension Rules, 1976 were instituted or pending against the respondent on the date of his retirement in 2019.
The Court noted that for the abovementioned reasons, the Single Judge had allowed the writ petition and directed the State to release the full amount of the gratuity of the respondent along with simple interest at the rate of 8 percent per annum on the full gratuity amount with effect from the date of his retirement till actual and final payment of the gratuity. The Single Judge had further directed that these directions must be complied with within three months of the order dated 22-11-2023, failing which instead of 8 percent simple interest, 10 percent simple interest would have to be paid. The Single Judge also clarified that the State was free to proceed in accordance with the law regarding the audit report with the alleged misappropriation.
Noting the aforesaid, the Court held that the Single Judge did not commit any illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference. Accordingly, the writ appeal being was deemed to be devoid of any merit and dismissed.
[State of Chhattisgarh v. B.P. Tiwari, WA No. 899 of 2024, decided on 14-01-2025]
*Judgment authored by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the appellant: Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General.
For the respondents: Hamida Siddiqui and H.S. Ahluwalia
1. WPS No. 2689 of 2021
