1 2025:CGHC:53746-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 719 of 2025 1. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Head Office Sunder Nagar, Mahadev Ghat Road Raipur District Colony, Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh. 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. ( Respondents ) ... Petitioner(s) versus Shrikrishna Prasad S/o Late Shri Ramcharitra Sao Aged About 66 Years, R/o. Bhagat Singh Ward, Kedarpur, Ambikapur, Civil And Revenue Distt- Sarguja ( C.G. ). ( Petitioner ) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vipin Punjabi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge 04.11.2025 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.11.06 10:47:07 +0530 2 1. The appellant/ respondent in writ petition has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 6565 of 2014, by which, the learned Single Judge has set aside the order passed by respondent No. 1 and allowed the writ petition filled by the respondent herein. 2. The writ appeal has been filed by the Bank with the following prayer:- “It is therefore reverently prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant appeal and set aside the relevant portion of the judgment and order dated 23.07.2025 passed in W.P. (S) No.: 6565/2014 observing for "consequence to follow including any monetary benefits" for the same being in clash with the liberty granted to the appellants herein to proceed in the enquiry from the stage of issuance of show cause notice after the enquiry report is received, or modify such order by clarifying that consequence to follow including any monetary benefits would be subject to final outcome of the departmental proceeding only, if so desired, in the larger interest of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent herein (writ petitioner) while working as a Branch Manager, Odagi branch, 3 Sarguja was issued with a charge sheet dated 05.02.2013 under the authority of the Chairman and Disciplinary Authority, Sarguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Appellant No.: 3, which got merged with the appellant No.: 1 vide notification dated 02.09.2013), alleging misappropriation in disbursement of the loans to the borrowers under five distinct charges. As the reply to the charge-sheet was not found satisfactory, a duly constituted departmental enquiry was held which culminated into submission of detailed enquiry report dated 07.08.2013 holding all the five charges as proved against the respondent employee. After submission of the enquiry report further inspired the appellants/Bank to issue a show cause notice dated 22.11.2013 enclosing a provisional punishment order, to show cause within fifteen days as to why the punishment of lowering of his pay in the time scale by three stages with cumulative effect till retirement with a restraint on annual increments under the then prevailing Regulation 39(1)(b)(i) of the Sarguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 (henceforth referred to as Regulation, 2010) , be not imposed against him. The respondent on being so issued a notice filed his reply dated 22.12.2013, however, failed to offer any plausible explanation otherwise as reached by the Disciplinary Authority, which led to passing of the order of punishment dated 03.01.2014 whereby the punishment proposed as stated above was made absolute. Thereafter, the respondent preferred appeal 4 before the Chairman/ appellate Officer which was also dismissed vide order dated 23.04.2014. Thereafter, the respondent preferred writ petition before the learned Single Judge and the same was allowed and the order of punishment was set aside. Thus the present appeal by the Bank. 4. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated 23.07.2025 and the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- “ XXX 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 5 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, however, the respondent (sic 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 monetary benefits. 7. The petition is accordingly allowed.” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Bench, particularly the observation regarding “consequence to follow including any monetary benefits,” is arbitrary, irrational, and has caused considerable hardship to the appellants. By directing payment of monetary benefits even prior to the conclusion of the enquiry, the learned Single Bench acted without proper appreciation of the legal and factual position. The learned Single Bench failed to recognize that since the respondent has already retired from service, preemptive payment of monetary benefits would render the enquiry toothless, as the respondent cannot be subjected to prospective penalties in the manner available against a serving employee. Moreover, the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the order of 6 punishment operates prospectively and cannot be enforced retrospectively; releasing monetary benefits prior to determination of guilt would deprive the appellant bank of any recourse to impose penalties, should the enquiry ultimately find the respondent guilty. Thus, he prays that the impugned order is liable to be set aside to prevent the prejudice and practical difficulties caused to the appellants in conducting the enquiry. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/employee submits that the respondent was working as Officer Grade-1 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. Learned counsel would submit that though charge sheet was issued by the Chairman of appellant No.3 which later on merged with appellant 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 respondent neither any proper opportunity to cross-examine 7 the witnesses were given to the respondent. Therefore, on merits also, the enquiry conducted against the appellant suffers from illegality. He further submits that the respondent has already retired and the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality in passing the order. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 8. From the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is quite apparent that the respondent (writ petitioner) was an officer of Grade-1 initially with appellant No.3 Bank and subsequently with appellant No.2 herein. It has not been agitated by both the parties that Regulations, 2010 deals with the service condition of the respondent 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 respondent which in the case in hand has been done by him. 9. Thus, in our view the learned Single Judge rightly identified the jurisdictional and procedural infirmities in the departmental proceedings, particularly noting that the punishment was imposed by the General Manager, who was not the competent authority under Regulation, 2010, and set aside the punishment order, 8 however, granted liberty to the appellants to proceed from the stage of issuance of the show cause notice after receipt of the departmental enquiry report. However, the observation regarding “consequence to follow including any monetary benefits” is arbitrary, irrational, and unsustainable. Directing the payment of monetary benefits prior to the conclusion of the departmental enquiry creates a situation where the enquiry becomes virtually toothless, as the respondent has already retired and cannot be subjected to prospective penalties in the manner applicable to a serving employee. 10. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed: the portion of the impugned order relating to consequence to follow including monetary benefits is set aside, while the liberty granted to the appellants/Bank to proceed with the enquiry against the writ petitioner (respondent herein) from the stage of issuance of the show cause notice is maintained. This ensures that the appellant bank can meaningfully complete the enquiry in accordance with law, without causing prejudice or injustice to the respondent employee. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti