1 2025:CGHC:35596 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6565 of 2014 1 - Shrikrishna Prasad S/o Late Shri Ramcharitra Sao Aged About 55 Years R/o Bhagat Singh Ward, Kedarpur Ambikapur Civil And Revenue District Sarguja C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Head Office Sunder Nagar, Mahadev Ghat Road Raipur District Colony, Raipur C.G. 2 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Controlling Office 1st Floor, Vivek Complex, Sangam Gali Ambikapur District Sarguja C.G. 3 - Sarguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank Regional Office Baikunthpur District Korea C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Vipin Punjabi and Shri Harsh Tripathi, Advocates For Respondent / State : Shri N.Naha Roy, Advocate ({HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT}) Order on Board 23/07/2025 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for following relief - 2 I) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and quash the impugned order dated 01/01/2014 (Annexure P/1) and 23/04/2014 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent No.1, in the interest of justice. II) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 2. Facts of the case which reflected from the writ petition is that the petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was working as Officer Grade I with the respondents and was posted as Assistant Manager/Branch Manager with respondents at District – Surguja. A charge sheet was issued against the petitioner by respondent No.3 leveling 5 charges with regard to his functioning being the Branch Manager of respondent No.3. The charge sheet was issued by Chairman of respondent No.3. Thereafter, the charge sheet was replied by the petitioner. As reply was not found satisfactory, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. In the meantime, respondent No.3 merged with respondent No.2. After conclusion of the departmental enquiry, a show cause notice along with copy of the departmental enquiry was sent to the petitioner by the General Manager of respondent No.2 to show cause as to why he should not be punished with reduction of 3 lower pay scale with cumulative effect till his retirement in the light of Regulation 39 (1) ([k) of erstwhile Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Officers and Workers) Seva Viniyam, 2010 (for short ‘Regulation 2010’). The said show cause notice was replied by the petitioner and ultimately, the General Manager of respondent No.2 imposed the abovestated punishment upon the petitioner vide Ex.P/1 dated 01/01/2014 which was communicated to him vide letter dated 03/01/2014. It appears that an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Chairman / appellate officer of respondent No.1 and the said appeal was also dismissed vide 3 Annexure P/2. This is how the writ petition came to be filed assailing the impugned orders. 3. Shri Punjabi and Shri Tripathi submits that the petitioner was working as Officer Grade-I and his service conditions were governed by Regulation, 2010 and according to the said regulation, the competent authority to take any disciplinary action or imposing punishment in respect of the petitioner would be the Chairman of the respondents. Learned counsel would submit that though charge sheet was issued by the Chairman of respondent No.3 which later on merged with respondent No.2, however, the show cause notice after enquiry was issued by the General Manager and punishment was imposed by the General Manager who was not competent to impose punishment on the petitioner. Therefore, they submit that as the impugned order is passed by an incompetent authority, the same is liable to be set aside on this count only. Apart from this, he submits that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law. There was violation of principles of natural justice, proper documents were not supplied to the petitioner neither any proper opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses were given to the petitioner. Therefore, on merits also, the enquiry conducted against the petitioner suffers from illegality and ultimately resulted into punishment order which is liable to be set aside on merits also. 4. Per contra, Shri Roy counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner was initially an employee of respondent No.3 which later on merged with respondent No.2. He fairly submits that the service conditions of the petitioner are governed by the Rules of 2010. He further submits that according to the Rules of 2010, as the petitioner was an officer of Grade-I, any punishment could have been imposed by the Chairman being the competent authority to impose such 4 punishment. He submits that though charge sheet was rightly issued by the Chairman, however, the impugned order (Annexure P/1) imposing the punishment was passed by the General Manager. On merits, he submits that from the record it is quite evident that the petitioner was given proper opportunity of hearing, principles of natural justice was followed. His reply to the show cause notice as well as to the enquiry report was duly considered by the disciplinary authority and therefore, the impugned order was passed. He further submits that in case the impugned orders are set aside on technical grounds being passed by an incompetent authority, the respondents may be granted liberty to proceed from the stage of issuance of show cause notice by the General Manager after receiving of the enquiry report. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is quite apparent that the petitioner was an officer of Grade–I initially with respondent No.3 and subsequently with respondent No.2. It has not been agitated by any of the parties that Regulations, 2010 deals with the service condition of the petitioner and according to Clause 2 (g) of Definitions, “Competent Authority” means the Chairman, in respect of officer and General Manager, in respect of employee. Meaning thereby that the General Manager was not the competent authority to impose penalty upon the petitioner which in the case in hand has been done by him. Though, an appeal was preferred before the Chairman which should have been the competent authority to pass any punishment order against the petitioner. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error and therefore, liable to be set aside. Both the orders are hereby set aside. As a result, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is also set aside, 5 however, the petitioner would be at liberty to proceed from the stage of issuance of show cause notice against the petitioner after departmental enquiry report is received, if so desired. Consequence to follow including any monetary benefits. 7. The petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.08.04 10:47:25 +0530