The High Court of Chhattisgarh in a recent judgment, held that since neither any judicial (criminal) proceedings were instituted against respondent No. 1/writ petitioner nor were any proceedings pending against him on the date of his retirement, respondent No. 1/writ petitioner is entitled to the full gratuity amount on the date of his retirement.
This decision came while dismissing an appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 22.11.2023 in WPS, where the learned Single Judge had previously allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1/writ petitioner.
Brief Facts:
The respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Revenue Inspector and was posted as Incharge Chief Municipal Officer. It was alleged that respondent No. 1/writ petitioner along with two other employees had committed misappropriation of funds. The respondent No. 1/writ petitioner superannuated on 31.03.2019. The amount of Rs. 4,68,194/- was withheld from the gratuity of respondent No.1. Against this, a writ petition was filed which was allowed. Hence, the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered that respondent No. 1 being the Assistant Revenue Inspector committed several financial irregularities and the amount being public money is required to be recovered in order to avoid financial loss to the public exchequer. Therefore, respondent No. 1 cannot take a plea of his retirement and any sort of consideration. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 22.11.2023 is untenable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Revenue Inspector and at the time of his retirement he was posted as Revenue Sub Inspector which is a Class-III post. It was the contention on behalf of the learned State counsel that after the retirement of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him regarding the audit report. However, no document in this regard has been filed by the State.
The Court observed that before the retirement of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner, no departmental inquiry was initiated against him nor was any show cause notice issued to him. The Court said that since neither any judicial (criminal) proceedings were instituted against respondent No. 1/writ petitioner nor were any proceedings pending against him on the date of his retirement, respondent No. 1/writ petitioner is entitled to the full gratuity amount on the date of his retirement. The ground cited by the appellant is not sufficient to withhold the gratuity amount.
The decision of the Court:
The Chhattisgarh High Court, dismissing the appeal, held that the learned Single Judge did not commit any illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court.
Case Title: State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. vs. B.P. Tiwari & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Hon’ble Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Case No.:WA No. 899 of 2024
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur
Advocate for the Respondent: Ms. Hamida Siddiqui
Picture Source :
