1 / 5 WPS No.3215 of 2024 2025:CGHC:14767 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3215 of 2024 1. Rajesh Kumar Gupta S/o Late Beni Madhao Gupta Aged About 60 Years R/o Shubham Vihar Before Om Zone, Mangla Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through The Chairman Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Corporate Office Plot No. 47, Sector 24, Atal Nagar New Raipur Chhattisgarh 492018 2. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Through The General Manager Corporate Office Plot No. 47, Sector 24, Atal Nagar New Raipur Chhattisgarh 492018 3. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through The Regional Manager DSS Complex Mungeli Naka Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. K. N. Nande, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate Order on Board By Bibhu Datta Guru, J. 27/03/2025 1. The petitioner, who was posted as Branch Manager at Branch Gidha, Mungeli retired from service on 31/10/2023, seeking quashment of the communication dated 30/10/2023 (Annexure-P/1) by which the respondent No.2 without any show cause notice and charge sheet by applying Regulation 45(3)(4) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation, 2013 (for short ‘the 2 / 5 WPS No.3215 of 2024 Regulation, 2013’) withheld his retiral dues i.e. pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondents cannot withheld the retiral dues of the petitioner stating that the departmental enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner and the same is being continued even after his retirement. He would submit that after retirement of the petitioner, the departmental enquiry cannot be initiated as there is no show cause notice or charge sheet issued to the petitioner prior to his retirement. By referring Regulation 10, learned counsel would submit that for the purpose of this regulation, disciplinary proceeding shall be deemed to be contemplated or pending against an officer or employee if he has been placed under suspension or any notice has been issued to him to show cause why disciplinary proceeding should not be instituted against him until final order are passed by the competent authority. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that from the series of documents filed by the petitioner right from Annexure P/2 to P/9, whereby the petitioner was regularly corresponded and pursuant to being afforded with due opportunity to examine the relevant documents necessary for him to file a plausible explanation to the show cause notice dated 23.06.2023 (Annexure P/2), enumerating therein large number of bank accounts in respect of maintenance of which serious irregularities at the instance of the petitioner came into light. He would further submit that the disciplinary 3 / 5 WPS No.3215 of 2024 proceedings against the petitioner was under serious contemplation and, therefore, the allegation of the petitioner of withholding of his retiral dues despite there being no reason as such is per se misconceived. He would submit that since issuance of the letter dated 23.06.2023 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why a disciplinary proceeding should not be instituted against him, the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was in contemplation very well and as such the case stood fundamentally on a different footing as compared to what has been projected by the petitioner. He would next submit that the letter dated 30.10.2023 clearly indicated the disciplinary proceeding being still remaining in contemplation against the petitioner, which meant that the competent officials of the respondent bank were evaluating the explanation offered by the petitioner on the allegations of impropriety and doubtful integrity as communicated to him through the show cause notice on the touchstone of fairness and plausibility. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents. 5. For the sake of convenience, it would be relevant to quote Regulation 10 of the Regulation 2013 :- 10. Termination of Service by Notice.-- (1) (a) No officer or employee shall leave or discontinue his service in the Bank without first giving notice in writing to the Appointing Authority of his intention to leave or discontinue his service or resign; (b) The period of notice required shall be, - 4 / 5 WPS No.3215 of 2024 (i) three months, in the case of confirmed officer or confirmed employee, (ii) one month, in the case of officer or employee who is on probation. (c) In case of breach of clause (b) of sub-regulation (1), an officer or employee shall be liable to pay to the Bank as compensation a sum equal to his pay for the period of notice required of him. (2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sub-regulation (1), an officer or employee against whom disciplinary proceeding is contemplated or pending shall not leave, discontinue or resign from his service in the Bank without the prior approval of the Appointing Authority and any notice of resignation given by such officer or employee before or during the disciplinary proceeding shall not take effect unless it is accepted by the Competent Authority. Explanation.-- For the purposes of this regulation, disciplinary proceeding shall be deemed to be contemplated or pending against an officer or employee if he has been placed under suspension or any notice has been issued to him to show cause why disciplinary proceeding should not be instituted against him until final order are passed by the Competent Authority.” 6. Perusal of explanation to Regulation 10, it appears that disciplinary proceeding shall be deemed to be contemplated or pending against an officer or employee if he has been placed under suspension or any notice has been issued to him to show cause why disciplinary proceeding should not be instituted against him until final order are passed by the Competent Authority. 7. In the present case, the respondents relying upon communication Annexure P/2 would submit that a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner on 23/06/2023 and as the show cause notice has been 5 / 5 WPS No.3215 of 2024 issued it will be deemed that the disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner. The said contention of the respondent Bank is absolutely incorrect as from the contents of the communication dated 23/06/2023 it is manifest that the respondent bank has only sought some information from the petitioner and the contents of Annexure P/2 does not reflect that it is a show cause notice, whereas the communication reflected that if the information will not be submitted then for disciplinary action the matter will be placed before the competent authority. The communication dated 23/06/2023 cannot be presumed that it is a show cause notice. Thus, it is held that in absence of a show cause notice or contemplation of departmental enquiry, the retiral dues of the petitioner cannot be withheld by applying Regulation 45 (3) (4) as he has already retired from service on 31/10/2023. 8. For the forgoing reasons, the impugned order dated 30/10/2023 is quashed and the petitioner is entitled for all the admissible retiral dues and the same be calculated and paid to the petitioner as early as possible preferably within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Digitally signed by K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Date: 2025.04.01 14:18:49 +0530