1 Reserved on: 29.01.2025 Delivered on: 28.04.2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 493 of 2013 1 - Santosh Kumar Agrawal S/o Lt Balkishan Agrawal Aged About 52 Years R/o Near Railway Station, Main Market, Batri Bazar, Post And Vill Akaltara, Ps Akaltara, Distt Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chairman And Ors. S/o Durg Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank, Head Office, Ge Road, Rajnandgaon, Ditt Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - General Manager, Durg Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank, Ge Road, Head Office, Ps And Distt Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sanjay Kadam Senior Manager Inquiry Officer, Secretariat Of Chairman, Durg Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank, Head Office, Ge Road, Rajnandgaon, Distt Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - R.S. Bisen Presenting Officer Durg Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank, Ge Road, Head Office, Ps And Distt Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 5 - Ranban Singh Rajput S/o Shri Basant Singh R/o Botebod, Tah Nawagarh, Ps Nandghat, Distt Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Narendra Verma S/o Basant Ram Verma R/o Botebod, Tah Nawagarh, Ps Nandghat, Distt Durg, Chhattisgarh 7 - Dev Kumar Verma Clerk-Cum-Cashier, Durg Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank, S/o Ramdayal Verma, R/o Gurudwara Road, 27 Kholi, Vikas Nagar, Bilaspur, Distt Bilasur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) C A V Order 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief:- 2 10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate order/ direction/ writ and quash the impugned orders dated 07.01.2012 (Annexure P/1) and 28.09.2012 (Annexure P/2). 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate order/ direction/ writ and quash the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner as being void ab initio for violation of the principles of natural justice. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Cout may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to award the cost of the petition to the petitioner. 10.5 Any other relief/ reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may also be granted to the petitioner.” 2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioner was posted as Branch Manager, Durg Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank, Maro. He was informed by respondent No.1 with regard to certain monetary transaction between him and respondent No.5. The petitioner in turn wrote a letter dated 12.04.2011 mentioning that he had obtained Rs.1,50,000/- from respondent no.5 on credit. The letter further mentioned that the petitioner and respondent No.5 are known to each other and they had monetary transactions for the past 25 years. This letter was signed in presence of respondent no.4 and respondent no.7. Thereafter, respondent No.7 had made a complaint to respondent no.1 pertaining to illegal gratification obtained by the petitioner from respondent No.5 for securing job to the family member of respondent No.7 on the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier. It is pertinent to mention here that the complaint was signed by respondent No.4 as one of the witnesses. Thereafter the petitioner was immediately served with a transfer order dated 12.04.2011 with a direction by respondent no.1 to immediately get him relieved to join at Branch Daundi on the next day. The petitioner assumed charge of Branch, Daundi on 20.04.2011 after availing joining leave. The petitioner was thereafter placed under suspension vide order dated 25.04.2011. Subsequently, charge sheet dated 16.06.2011 was issued by respondent 3 no.1 against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his reply denying all the charges made against him. The enquiry was conducted by respondent no.4 and the report was submitted to respondent no.3. The petitioner was asked to be present on 25.08.2011 for participating in enquiry but the petitioner expressed his inability to do so on account of his ill health, but being indifferent to this, the respondent No.4 proceeded with the enquiry and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Again оn 20.09.2011, the petitioner made himself available for the enquiry and the statement of respondent no.5 was recorded on that day. The petitioner’s request for providing him legal assistance was also turned down and the enquiry was postponed on his own request. Having been left with no alternative remedy available to him, the petitioner accepted all the charges with a hope that mercy would lean in his favour while proceeding with the matter. Thereafter, the enquiry was concluded and the order dated 07/01/2012 dismissing the petitioner from service was passed which has subsequently been affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 28/09/2012 which are respectively marked as Annexure P/1 and P/2. The stand of the petitioner in this case is that both the orders under challenge in this petition have been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing and thus, in violation of principle of natural justice. Hence this petition. 3. Reply has been filed by respondents inter alia pleading that proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner in the departmental enquiry conducted against him. The charges against the petitioner were serious in nature and after due enquiry, they were found proved, therefore, the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner was also rejected. The reply also states that both the orders have been passed keeping in mind the legal parameters after holding a detailed enquiry and therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Apart from this, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that since the petitioner has already accepted the charge, nothing remains to be decided in this petition. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner; request for legal assistance made by the petitioner was also not heeded to. He submits that the petitioner was put under an impression that in case of acceptance of the charge leveled against him, the departmental enquiry would not culminate in any major punishment. He also submits that the punishment imposed is quite excessive and disproportionate to the charge leveled against him. He further submits that the amount received by the petitioner has also been returned. This apart, he submits that as the petitioner has served for a long period with the respondents, his ouster from service would cause him an irreparable loss, and therefore keeping in mind the difficulties to be faced by the petitioner, the petition may be allowed and the orders impugned may be set aside. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and ors. reported in (2004) 4 SCC 560. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents supports the orders impugned and submits that there is a specific charge of demanding and accepting the illegal gratification from respondent No.5 and as all the charges have been duly proved in a detailed departmental enquiry, the writ petition filed by the petitioner sans merit and is liable to be dismissed. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate authority) and ors. v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612, Manoj H. Mishra v. Union of India reported in (2013) 6 SCC 313 and State Bank of India and ors. v. Bidyut Kumar Mitra and ors. reported in (2011) 2 SCC 316. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and gone through the documents annexed with the petition as also the return. 7. There is no dispute that the petitioner at the relevant time was working as a Branch Manager of Branch -Maro of Durg Rajnandgaon, Gramin Bank. From the documents on record, it is also apparent that the family member of respondent No.7 had qualified the written examination for the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier. Thereafter, for 5 final appointment, the petitioner raised demand of Rs.1,50,000/- on the pretext of being given to the highly placed officers and Rs.4,000/- for himself. Respondent No.5 has made the payment of Rs.1,54,000/- as a whole to the petitioner. However, when respondent No.7 came to know all this and being already an employee of the said bank was also aware that no such gratification is needed in the bank making appointment and everything goes on fairly, he made a complaint to respondent No.1 bringing to his notice the conduct of the petitioner. It is also established from the record that on being informed by respondent No.1 about such demand being raised, he by writing a letter dated 12/04/2011 denied the same and made an averment that he was already having monetary terms with respondent No.5 and such transactions are being maintained between them for the last 25 years. However, this plea of the petitioner did not yield any result and a proposal of departmental enquiry being conducted was finalised. It is relevant to note here that a detailed enquiry went on against the petitioner where he accepted his charge though with a hope of being dealt with mercifully. The record also reveals that the petitioner duly participated in the enquiry and being disgruntled by the order of his dismissal from service, he also preferred a statutory appeal which also met the same fate. Thus, this Court is not convinced with the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the orders impugned have been passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner had all opportunities during the course of departmental enquiry to have substantiated his stand but for the reasons best known to him he accepted the charge made against him. 8. This is a matter where the penalty of dismissal has been imposed after a detailed departmental enquiry for the charge of accepting illegal gratification in lieu of making the job in the bank available to the family member of respondent No.7. The order of penalty passed in a departmental enquiry has subsequently been affirmed in appeal too. The legal position holding the field in such matters is that the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts and strict proof of legal evidence and findings on 6 the evidence are not relevant. It has also been held by the Supreme Court time and again that in the departmental enquiry related matters the constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity. However, the material available on record does not demonstrate that the authority concerned acted malafidely in any manner whatsoever, rather the finding so recorded appears to be the outcome of the act of the petitioner having accepted the illegal gratification for securing the job in the bank to the family member of respondent No.7. Moreover, if the irregularity happens to be of the financial institutions, the Supreme Court has emphatically expressed that in the like institutions, devotion and honesty are the main attributes required to be observed being sine qua non in such matters. If the case in hand is looked into minutely, the charge which has subsequently been proved against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry is that he obtained an amount of Rs.1,54,000/- from respondent No.5 so as to facilitate respondent No.7 to secure employment for his family member. This speaks volumes about non-observance of integrity and rectitude being part of the Gramin Bank where the petitioner was rendering his services on the responsible post of Branch Manager. 9. The other submission advanced by counsel for the petitioner with regard to the punishment imposed on the petitioner being disproportionate to the act alleged against him also appears to be without substance for the reason that though the petitioner had the opportunity to deny the charges, he has chosen to make an unequivocal admission and therefore, this Court is not inclined to concede to such submission. The other submission that the petitioner had returned the amount received by him also does not absolve him from the act committed by him particularly when a detailed departmental enquiry has been conducted and the petitioner has admitted the acceptance of money from respondent No.5. 10. So far as the argument of not affording reasonable opportunity before passing the order impugned is concerned, from the record it is unequivocally clear that a detailed 7 departmental enquiry was conducted where the petitioner also participated and ultimately made an admission of the money being received by him, it cannot be said that the principle of natural justice has not been followed. As regards, the opportunity of hearing in addition to this, as learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show the prejudice if any, caused to the petitioner in absence of such hearing, this limb of the submission is also liable to be rejected. 11. As regards, the decision cited by the counsel for the petitioner in respect of power of the High Court to give a direction to concerned authority for reconsideration of the punishment, as the facts of that case and the present one are not compatible with each other, it is of no help to the petitioner because if the magnitude and gravity of the misconduct established against the petitioner is looked into, the punishment of dismissal from service does not appear to be a disproportionate one. It is worth mentioning here that in the case sought to be taken support of by the petitioner, the punishment imposed was excessively high to the act attributed, however, such is not the position in the case in hand because the penalty of dismissal from service has been inflicted on the petitioner when a charge of illegal gratification amounting to Rs.1,54,000/- has been found duly proved. 12. Thus, having taken note of the aforesaid factual background in the light of the judicial pronouncements referred to above, the orders impugned do not appear to be in contravention of the law holding the field and being so, they do not warrant any interference in this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No cost. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Deepti/J DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.04.29 10:55:05 +0530