Terminated employee convicted under Prevention of Corruption Act is ineligible for leave encashment benefits.

The petitioner was appointed as a Patwari in 1983. In 2007, his services were terminated following his conviction under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

The petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for the respondents to release his unpaid dues, specifically District Provident Fund (DPF), Group Insurance Scheme (GIS), and Leave Encashment, along with 18% interest

During the proceedings, the State demonstrated that ₹1,79,136 for DPF and ₹18,249 for GIS had already been paid

The petitioner disputed the DPF amount based on a prior departmental proposal (Annexure D-1) which suggested a higher figure

1. Whether a government servant terminated due to conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act is entitled to leave encashment

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a higher DPF amount based on a clerical departmental proposal as opposed to the final Treasury calculation

Rule 9(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010, provides that a government servant dismissed or removed from service as a disciplinary measure (including termination due to criminal conviction) is not entitled to the encashment of earned leave

Regarding the DPF, the court relied on the distinction between a "departmental reference/proposal" and a "final determination" by the Treasury Department

The Court found that since the petitioner was terminated specifically due to a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Rule 9(2) of the Rules, 2010, categorically barred his claim for leave encashment

Regarding the DPF discrepancy, the Court accepted the State’s explanation that the calculation sheet in Annexure D-1 (showing approximately ₹6.56 Lakhs) was a clerical error that mistakenly included interest up to the year 2022, whereas the petitioner’s service ended in 2007

The Court reasoned that a departmental proposal does not constitute a final legal entitlement and noticed that the petitioner failed to provide documentary evidence to prove the Treasury's re-calculation of ₹1,79,136 was inadequate

The writ petition was dismissed at the motion stage, and no order as to costs was passed