1 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6920 of 2016 Reserved on 11.11.2025 Delivered on 18.11.2025 Mukund Lal Sahu S/o Late Shri Dular Ram Sahu, Aged About 61 Years, Retired Office Assistant Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Branch Mahud, Machandur, Rajnandgaon, R/o Plot No. 17- B, Pandurang Colony, Ward No. 7, Station Para, Chikhli, Rajnandgaon, Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - General Manager (Administration) Appellate Authority, Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Head Office Mahadev Ghat Road, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Disciplinary Authority-Cum-Regional Manager, (Durg Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank) Now Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Regional Office, Rajnandgaon, G E Road, Near Mundrakunj, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Chawla, Advocate, on behalf of Mrs. Naushina Ali, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal C A V O R D E R BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.11.18 15:12:05 +0530 2 1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred assailing the order dated 01.09.2016 Annexure P-1 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the imposition of fine of Rs.45,000 under the provisions of Rule 39(2)(b)(1) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulations, 2013 (in short ‘the Regulation of 2013) has been rejected by the respondent No.1. 2. The relevant facts in the present case, in brief, are that the petitioner, Mukund Lal Sahu, was posted as a Clerk-cum- Cashier at Surgi Branch of Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank from 10.12.2004 to 13.06.2007. On 30.03.2013, a charge sheet alleging irregularities and misconduct during that period was issued to the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner did not perform his duties as a bank employee with honesty and integrity and he failed to take necessary measures to safeguard the bank's interests, thereby putting the bank at financial risk. On 05.05.2013, the petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet stating that he was not responsible for any misappropriation of the ledger or putting the bank at financial risk. 3. The enquiry went on and ultimately an enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 03.02.2015. According to the enquiry report, “the charges were found to be true, but the entries in the ledger were made by Keshav Ram Sahu, the 3 messenger-cum-sweeper, on the instructions of the Branch Manager and this fact has also been admitted by Keshav Ram Sahu in his testimony. This does not clearly indicate that the accused employee, Mukund Lal Sahu, did not perform his duties with honesty and integrity.” 4. Meanwhile, the petitioner superannuated on 31.03.2015. On 22.01.2016, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner mentioning that “the copy of the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner on 24.07.2015 to which the petitioner submitted his defence/reply on 24.08.2015. After examining his defense statement, the departmental inquiry proceedings, the inquiry report and the documents/evidence presented during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has decided to impose fine of Rs.45,000 on petitioner under clause 39(2)(b)(1) of the Chhattisgarh State Gramin Bank Officer and Employee Service Regulations, 2013. The petitioner was directed to reply within 15 days as to why he should not be punished with the proposed penalty”. 5. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 18.02.2016. However, on 14.03.2016, the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Respondent No.2 disagreeing with the view taken by the Enquiry Officer, held that the petitioner did not perform his duties with honesty and integrity and imposed a fine of Rs.45,000/- on him under the provisions of the Regulations of 2013. Against 4 such imposition of fine, the petitioner filed a writ petition i.e. WPS No.1267/2016 before this High Court which was disposed of vide order dated 28.04.2016 with a direction to the petitioner to file an appeal before the respondent No.1. The petitioner’s appeal was subsequently rejected by the respondent No.1 vide impugned order dated 01.09.2016 which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 6. The sole contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no reason/explanation has been given by the Disciplinary Authority in the show cause notice for not accepting the view given by the Enquiry Officer in his report. In the absence of any reason or ground in the show cause notice, it amounts to an empty formality which would cause grave prejudice to the delinquent employee and therefore the impugned order affirming the decision of the Disciplinary Authority deserves to be set aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ram Kishan v. Union of India and Others reported in (1995) 6 SCC 157, Punjab National Bank and Others v. Kunj Behari Mishra reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 & Yoginath D Badge V. State Of Maharastra And Anr, reported in (1999) 7 SCC 739. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that it is well within the power of the Disciplinary Authority to differ with 5 the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and impose a fine. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority has not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the order dated 14.03.2016. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The show cause notice dated 22.01.2016 issued to the petitioner reads as follows: आपको सुप्ቖ किकोये गये आቌኔप सुह आरोप प्ቔ ्ቅाሰको ्ቚ.को./कि.अ.ाሰ.-314/2012- 13 कि्ቖाሪको 30/03/2013 परो ाም#च अधि&कोरो' ቛኋरो किभाग'ये ाም#च कोये ह' कोरो ाም#च ्ቚकि*्ቖाሪ ्ቚस्** किकोये गये ह, धिाምसुको- छाये्ቚकि* आपको कि्ቖाሪको 24/07/2015 को ाሰध्येाሰ सु ्ቚकि2* को- गये' थी' । आपाሪ कि्ቖाሪको 24/08/2015 को ाም#च ्ቚकि*्ቖाሪ परो बच ्ቚकि*्ቖाሪ ्ቚस्** किकोये । आपको ቛኋरो ्ቚस्** बच ्ቚकि*्ቖाሪ, किभाग'ये ाም#च कोये ह' को किरोण, ाም#च ्ቚकि*्ቖाሪ औरो किभाग'ये ाም#च को ्ቖ:रोाሪ ्ቚस्** ्ቖस्*ाም;/सुቌኚये; को अलोकोाሪ पश्च* अाሪशासुकिाሪको अधि&कोरो' ቛኋरो आपको छाቈኍ'सुगढ़ रोज्ये ቇኋाሰ'ण बDको अधि&कोरो' औरो कोाሰ चरो' सु किकिाሪयेाሰ 2013 को- कोቄኌFGको 39(2) (ख)( ) i को अ*ग * किाሪम्ाሪाሪसुरो ्ቖFG सु ्ቖቄኌFG* कोरोाሪ को अाሪቄኌM*ाሰ किाሪण ये धिलोये गये ह, । कोN पये इसु प्ቔ को- ्ቚकिP को 15 कि्ቖाሪ; को अ्ቖरो अग* कोरोयेQ किको क्ये; ाሪ आपको ्ቚस्*कि* ्ቖFG सु ्ቖቄኌFG* किकोये ाም । ाሰD (अाሪशासुकिाሪको अधि&कोरो'/ቌኔ्ቔ'ये ्ቚब&को), छाቈኍ'सुगढ़ रोज्ये ቇኋाሰ'ण बDको अधि&कोरो' औरो कोाሰ चरो' सु किकिाሪयेाሰ 2013 को- कोቄኌFGको 39(2)(ख)( ) i को अ*ग * ቦኍ' ाሰको M्ቖ लोलो सुहT को रू 45000/- (रू पD*धिलोसु हाምरो ाሰ्ቔ) को अथी ्ቖFG सु ्ቖቄኌFG* कोरोाሪ को अाሪቄኌM*ाሰ आ्ቖशा परिरो* कोरो* हT# । 10. A perusal of the show cause notice reflects that no reason or explanation was given by the Disciplinary Authority for disagreeing with the view/finding taken by the Enquiry Officer. 6 11. According to the report of the Enquiry Officer, it does not clearly indicate that the accused employee, Mukund Lal Sahu, did not perform his duties with honesty and integrity. The Disciplinary Authority disagreeing with the said finding held that the petitioner did not perform his duties with honesty and integrity and imposed a fine of Rs.45,000/-. However, the Disciplinary Authority has not given any reason in the show cause notice for taking a view contrary to that of the Enquiry Officer. 12. In the case of Ram Kishan v. Union of India and Others reported in (1995) 6 SCC 157, while discussing this issue, the Supreme Court has held that unless the Disciplinary Authority gives specific reasons in the show cause notice on the basis of which the findings of the Inquiry Officer in that behalf is based, it would be difficult for the delinquent employee to satisfactorily give reasons to persuade the Disciplinary Authority to agree with the conclusions reached by the Enquiry Officer and observed in para-10 as under: 10. The next question is whether the show cause notice is valid in law. It is true, as rightly contended by the counsel for the appellant, that the show cause notice does not indicate the reasons on the basis of which the disciplinary authority proposed to disagree with the conclusions reached by the inquiry officer. The purpose of the show cause notice, in case of disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer, is to enable the delinquent to show that the disciplinary authority is persuaded not to disagree with the conclusions reached by the inquiry officer for the reasons given in the inquiry report or he may offer additional reasons in support of the finding by the inquiry officer. In that 7 situation, unless the disciplinary authority gives specific reasons in the show cause on the basis of which the findings of the inquiry officer in that behalf is based, it would be difficult for the delinquent to satisfactorily give reasons to persuade the disciplinary authority to agree with the conclusions reached by the inquiry officer. In the absence of any ground or reason in the show cause notice it amounts to an empty formality which would cause grave prejudice to the delinquent officer and would result in injustice to him. The mere fact that in the final order some reasons have been given to disagree with the conclusions reached by the disciplinary authority cannot cure the defect. But, on the facts in this case, the only charge which was found to have been accepted is that the appellant had used abusive language on the superior authority. Since the disciplinary authority has said that it has agreed partly to that charge, the provisional conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority in that behalf even in the show cause notice, cannot be said to be vague. Therefore, we do not find any justification to hold that the show cause notice is vitiated by an error of law, on the facts in this case. 13. In the matter of Punjab National Bank and Others v. Kunj Behari Mishra reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84, the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon its earlier decision in Ram Kishan (supra) and held in para-19 as under: 19.The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the inquiry authority on any article of charge then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the inquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favorable conclusion of the inquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we 8 have already observed, require the authority, which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer. 14. Similarly, in the matter of Yoginath D Badge V. State Of Maharastra And Anr reported in (1999) 7 SCC 739, the Supreme Court relied upon the principles laid down in Kunj Behari Mishra (supra) and observed in Para-31 as under: 31. In view of the above, a delinquent employee has the right of hearing not only during the enquiry proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Officer into the charges levelled against him but also at the stage at which those findings are considered by the Disciplinary Authority and the latter, namely, the Disciplinary Authority forms a tentative opinion that it does not agree with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. If the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are in favour of the delinquent and it has been held that the charges are not proved, it is all the more necessary to give an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee before reversing those findings. The formation of opinion should be tentative and not final. It is at this stage that the delinquent employee should be given an opportunity of hearing after he is informed of the reasons on the basis of which the Disciplinary Authority has proposed to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. This is in consonance with the requirement of Article 311(2) of the Constitution as it provides that a person shall not be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an enquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. So long as a final decision is not taken in the matter, the enquiry shall be deemed to be pending. Mere submission of findings to the Disciplinary Authority does not bring about the closure of the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry proceedings would come to an end only when the findings have 9 been considered by the Disciplinary Authority and the charges are either held to be not proved or found to be proved and in that event punishment is inflicted upon the delinquent. That being so, the "right to be heard" would be available to the delinquent up to the final stage. This right being a constitutional right of the employee cannot be taken away by any legislative enactment or Service Rule including Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution. 15. From the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, it is quite vivid that whenever the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the finding of Enquiry Officer on any charge, then before it records its own finding on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent employee an opportunity to persuade the Disciplinary Authority by filing representation to accept the favourable conclusion recorded by the Enquiry Officer. However, in the present case, the Disciplinary Authority has not given any reason in the show cause notice for disagreeing with the report/finding of the Enquiry Officer. In the absence of any ground or reason in the show cause notice it amounts to an empty formality which would cause grave prejudice to the delinquent employee and would result in injustice to him. Therefore, the principles of natural justice, as laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, have been violated. 16. The petitioner superannuated on 31.03.2015. More than 10 ½ years have elapsed since the delinquent employee had 10 superannuated. It will, therefore, not be in the interest of justice that at this stage the case should be remanded to the Disciplinary Authority for the start of another innings. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order and the order of the Disciplinary Authority imposing fine/penalty on the petitioner are set aside. The respondents are directed to release the fine/penalty amount deducted from the retirement benefits of the petitioner. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai