1 2025:CGHC:33163 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 696 of 2025 1. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through The Chairman, Corporate Office, Sector 24, Plot No. 47, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. General Manager (Operation-2) Cum Disciplinary Authority Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Corporate Office, Sector 24, Plot No. 47, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Regional Manager Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Regional Office, At Ambikapur, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4. Sushil Tigga Enquiry Officer, Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Branch Sitapur, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5. Abhishek Badiyaar Presenting Officer, Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Branch Sitapur, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus  Piyush Verma S/o- Late Vinod Verma Aged About 38 Years Branch Manager (Suspended), Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Branch- Pasta, Tahsil- Rajpur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh, R/o- Behind District Hospital, Darripara, Kabir Ward, Ambikapur, P.S.- Manipur, Tahsil- Ambikapur, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ...Non-Applicant/ Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicants : Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate For Non-applicant/ Respondent : Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16. 07.2025 1. By way of this application, applicant is seeking modification of the order passed by this Court in WPS No. 6215 of 2023 dated 12.03.2025. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.16 14:22:54 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that writ petition filed by present respondent was allowed by this Court vide order dated 12.03.2025. He would further submit that a liberty was granted to present applicants to continue the departmental proceedings after the conclusion of the criminal case. He would further submit that due to inadvertence, it could not be informed to the Hon’ble Court that the departmental proceedings against the present respondent were already completed and only final order is required to be passed. He would also submit that the present applicants may be permitted to continue with the departmental enquiry and to pass final order. He prays to modify the order impugned up to that extent. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for non-applicant would oppose. 4. Heard. 5. The writ petition i.e. WPS No. 6215 of 2023 filed by the respondent/petitioner was allowed vide order dated 12.03.2025 wherein the petition was allowed and liberty was granted to present applicants to continue the departmental proceedings after the conclusion of the criminal case. The order was passed by this Court after going through the pleadings made in the writ petition and the grounds raised herein-above were not raised at the time of hearing of the writ petition. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that there is no typographical error or any other error apparent on the face of record, I do not find any reason to modify the order dated 12.03.2025 passed in WPS No. 6215 of 2023. 7. Consequently, present MCC stands rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant