1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1174 of 2023 Reserved on 28/10/2025 Delivered on 11/12/2025 1 - Gopal Prasad Jaiswal (Died And Deleted)(Through Legal Hiers) In Compliance Of Honble Court Order Dated 27/08/2024, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 1.1 - (A) Sushma Jaiswal Widow Of Late Shri Gopal Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 56 Years R/o Purani Basti, Gopiyapara Akaltara (Po And Ps) District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 1.2 - (B) Anshul Jaiswal S/o Late Shri Gopal Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 31 Years R/o Purani Basti, Gaopiyapara, Akaltara (P.O. And Ps), District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Through It Chairman, Head Office- Mahadev Ghat Road, Sunder Nagar, Raipur (Po And Ps), District Raipur Chhattisgarh Pincode -492001. 2 - General Manager (Administrative), Chhattisagrh Rajya Gramin Bank, Head Office Mahadev Ghat Road, Sunder Nagar, Raipur (Po And Ps), District Raipur Chhattisgarh Pincode 492001. ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 3 - The Disciplinary Authority, Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Head Office- Mahadev Ghat Road, Sunder Nagar, Raipur (Po And Ps), District Raipur Chhattisgarh Pincode -492001. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitesh Jain, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raj Shengale, Advocate on behalf of Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief(s) :- 10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction quashing the order dated 15/04/2015(P/1) passed by respondent no. 2 and in turn quashing the order dated 14/10/2014 (P/2) passed by the respondent no. 3 as the same being illegal, arbitrary and not in accordance with law, in the facts and circumstances of the case and command the respondents to grant all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances. 10.3. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction quashing the order of representation dated 08/09/2014 passed by the respondent authorities and in turn, 3 commanding the respondent authorities to treat the entire period of suspensionbeyond the period of 3 months during which no charge sheet was issued), as spent on duty and pay the difference, between the subsistence allowance and full pay and allowances which the petitioner would otherwise have received but for the period of suspension, 10.4. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioners including the cost of the petition. 2. The case, in essence, involves the following facts are that the petitioner is a resident of the address mentioned in the cause title and a citizen of India, entitled to all the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and other statutory rights conferred under the municipal and service laws applicable to him. The petitioner was serving as the Branch Manager at the Thousir Branch of the Respondent Bank during the period from 30.07.2008 to 24.05.2010. During the course of his service, the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 17.04.2010, pending initiation of departmental proceedings. The petitioner continued to remain under suspension for a prolonged period of four years and seven months. During this entire period, he was paid subsistence allowance at the rate of 50% of his wages, except for the initial period of three months during which he was paid only one-third of his pay and allowances. The 4 petitioner asserts that there was no delay on his part in the conduct or completion of the departmental inquiry and that the prolonged suspension was wholly unjustified. It is further submitted that nearly eleven months after the suspension order, a charge sheet dated 16.03.2011 was issued to the petitioner, levelling five distinct charges of misconduct against him. Charge No. 1 pertained to alleged irregularities in sanctioning crop loans to farmers beyond the jurisdiction of the Thousir Branch, accepting forged B-1 Khasra documents, failure to conduct pre- sanction surveys, and sanctioning loans for both Kharif and Rabi crops simultaneously with inflated valuations. Charge No. 2 alleged that the petitioner had altered the date in the B-1 Khasra Panchsala report from 03.07.2009 to 03.06.2009 and that he had recommended sanction of loans without receiving requisite documents or conducting proper verification, including failure to obtain no due certificates. Charge No. 3 related to alleged irregularities in the recommendation and sanction of tractor loans. Charge No. 4 alleged that the petitioner had accepted illegal gratification in varying amounts from certain borrowers, and Charge No. 5 alleged that the loan sanctioned in Account No. KCC 26/35 of one Shri Vasudev Siddar was fake and based on forged documents, including falsified photographs and a fabricated voter identity card. The petitioner denied all allegations in his written statement of defence. However, as his reply was not found satisfactory by the disciplinary authority, an Inquiry Officer 5 was appointed to conduct a regular departmental inquiry. The Inquiry Officer, after conducting the inquiry, submitted his report under cover letter dated 15.07.2014, holding that Charges 1, 2, and 3 were partially proved, Charge 4 was not proved, and Charge 5 was proved. The report of the Inquiry Officer was forwarded to the petitioner with an opportunity to submit his final defence statement, which he did on 30.07.2014. Subsequently, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice dated 01.09.2014, proposing the punishment of reduction to the lowest stage of the time scale of pay and stoppage of annual increments till retirement. 3. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 27.09.2014, contending that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were perverse and unsupported by evidence. Nevertheless, by order dated 14.10.2014, the disciplinary authority imposed upon the petitioner the punishment of reduction to the minimum of the basic pay scale along with stoppage of annual increments till retirement. The petitioner thereafter retired from service on 29.02.2020. Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 13.01.2015. The Appellate Authority, however, vide order dated 15.04.2015 (Annexure P/1), rejected the appeal and upheld the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner submits that while passing the impugned orders, neither authority made any observation or decision regarding the treatment of the suspension period or the 6 payment of the difference between the subsistence allowance and the full salary that the petitioner would have otherwise been entitled to receive. According to the petitioner, Regulation 48 of the Service Regulations, 2010, which governs the payment of subsistence allowance and the treatment of the suspension period, requires the competent authority to make a reasoned decision in this regard. In the absence of any specific order to the contrary, the petitioner claims entitlement to the difference between the subsistence allowance already paid and the full salary for the suspension period. Consequently, he submitted a representation dated 07.08.2015 seeking such payment, which was not favourably considered. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court by filing WPS No.3679 of 2015, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.07.2021 (Annexure P/12), directing the respondent authorities to decide the petitioner’s pending representation within forty-five days from the date of communication of the order. In purported compliance with the said direction, the respondent authorities, by order dated 08.09.2021, rejected the petitioner’s representation in a perfunctory and non-speaking manner. The petitioner further submits that the prolonged suspension of four years and seven months was contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India , (2015) 7 SCC 291, wherein it has been held that the period of suspension should not ordinarily extend beyond three months if no charge 7 sheet is served within that period, and that continuation of suspension thereafter requires a reasoned order. In the present case, as no charge sheet was issued within ninety days of suspension, and no reasoned order was passed for its continuation, the petitioner’s suspension was arbitrary and illegal. It is further contended that the punishment order is vitiated for non-compliance with Regulation 39.1(b)(i) of the Service Regulations, which authorizes imposition of the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay only for a specified period, with clear directions as to whether the employee shall earn increments during such period and whether such reduction shall have the effect of postponing future increments. The impugned order, however, fails to specify the duration of reduction and illegally directs stoppage of increments till retirement. The respondents were thus not competent to impose such a penalty. Moreover, there is no provision under Regulation 39 empowering the imposition of the combined punishment of reduction in pay along with stoppage of increments, nor any authority to impose stoppage of increments with cumulative effect. The order of punishment, therefore, amounts to an unlawful combination of major and minor penalties and is ex facie contrary to the service regulations of the Bank, rendering it illegal and unsustainable in law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner respectfully submits that the actions of the respondent authorities are arbitrary, illegal, 8 discriminatory, and in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. The continuance of the petitioner under suspension for a period of four years and seven months without issuance of the charge sheet within the prescribed period of ninety days, and without any reasoned order extending the suspension, is in direct contravention of the law laid down and directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, rendering such suspension wholly illegal, arbitrary, and liable to be set aside. Further, the punishment of reduction to the lowest stage in the time scale of pay, as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority, fails to specify the duration for which such reduction would operate and does not indicate whether the petitioner would earn increments during the period of reduction, thereby violating Regulation 39.1(b) of the Service Regulations, 2010. The impugned order is also contrary to the statutory scheme under Regulation 39.1(a), which treats stoppage or withholding of increments without cumulative effect as a minor penalty, and there is no provision granting the respondents general power to impose stoppage of increments with cumulative effect independently of the reduction in pay. 5. Consequently, the punishment as imposed is manifestly illegal, ultra vires the Regulations, and liable to be set aside. The petitioner further submits that the Appellate Authority, while disposing of the appeal dated 13.01.2015, failed to consider the matter on merits, casually affirmed the order of the Disciplinary 9 Authority, and thereby failed to exercise its statutory duty, in contravention of the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deokinandan Sharma v. Union of India (2001) 5 SCC 340. The petitioner contends that the impugned actions of the respondents are also violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India, being arbitrary, discriminatory, and prejudicial. Lastly, the petitioner submits that the dismissal of his representation seeking regularization of the subsistence allowance and payment of the differential salary was carried out in a capricious and fallacious manner, further evidencing mala fide, and is therefore liable to be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the present writ petition is misconceived both on facts and in law. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 14.10.2014 and 15.04.2015, whereby he was imposed with the major penalty of reduction to the lowest stage in the time scale of pay and disentitled from earning increments till retirement, as well as the order dated 03.09.2021 dismissing his representation for payment of the difference between the subsistence allowance and full salary. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner had earlier challenged the same orders in WP(S) No. 3679/2015, which was disposed of on 14.07.2021 with directions to decide the salary issue from 17.04.2010 to 29.11.2014, and no liberty was granted to challenge the impugned orders afresh, making the present petition barred by the principle of res judicata and liable to be dismissed on this 10 ground alone. 7. On merits, the respondents submit that the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority meticulously examined all documents, followed the principles of natural justice, and found the petitioner guilty of serious misconduct during the course of his duties. Prior to imposing the major penalty, the petitioner was issued a show- cause notice, and after due consideration, the competent authority reduced him to the lowest pay scale and disentitled him from earning increments in accordance with Regulation 39(1)(b)(i) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010. The subsistence allowance was correctly paid as per Regulation 46 of the Service Regulations, and the petitioner’s claim for the differential amount is misconceived, as the Competent Authority has discretion under Regulation 48 to treat the period of suspension as “not spent on duty” in cases of major penalties, which was exercised in the present case considering the gravity of the charges and the detrimental effect of the misconduct on the interests of the Bank. The respondents further submit that the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the orders of the Disciplinary Authority or Appellate Authority, and as such, under settled law, including Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610, this Hon’ble Court cannot re-appreciate evidence, review findings of fact, or interfere with the disciplinary conclusions where no patent illegality exists. In the circumstances, the present petition is 11 devoid of merit and is liable to be summarily dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record with utmost circumspection. 9. It is pertinent to reproduce Rule 39(1)(b)(i) and Rule 48(2) of the Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank, Raipur (C.G.) Officers and Employees Service Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations of 2010”) for ready reference:- “39. Penalties - Without prejudice to the foregoing regulations of this Chapter, an officer or employee who commits a breach of these regulations or who displays negligence, inefficiency or indolence or who commits acts detrimental to the interests of the Bank or in conflict with its instructions, or who commits a breach of discipline or is guilty of any other acts of misconduct, shall be liable for any one or more penalties as follows, namely, - (1) xxxxx (b) Major Penalties:- (i) save as provided in item (v) of clause (a) of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 39, reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether or not the officer shall earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether on expiry of such period the reduction shall or shall not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay; 48. Treatment of suspension period and allied matters - (1) xxxxx (2) The period during which an officer or employee is under suspension shall, if he is not removed or dismissed from the service, be treated as period spent on duty or otherwise as the Competent Authority may direct. 10. From the aforesaid regulation it transpires that the Bank to impose major penalties on an officer or employee for misconduct, including reduction to a lower pay stage for a specified period, 12 with conditions regarding future increments and Rule 48(2) provides that the period of suspension will be treated as duty or otherwise, depending on the decision of the competent authority, if the employee is not ultimately removed or dismissed. 11. A plain reading of Regulation 39(1)(b)(i) reveals that specification of the period of reduction in pay is a mandatory requirement. The impugned punishment order does not prescribe any such period. It also fails to clarify whether increments are to be earned during such period or whether the reduction shall have the effect of postponing future increments. The order further imposes “stoppage of increments till retirement” without authority under Regulation 39, which does not contemplate such a penalty. Combining reduction in pay and indefinite stoppage of increments amounts to an impermissible merger of major and minor penalties, rendering the order ultra vires the Regulations of 2010. With respect to Regulation 48(2), once the employee is neither removed nor dismissed, the Competent Authority is required to make a reasoned decision on whether the suspension period is to be treated as duty. No such order exists. The representation was rejected without reasons, making the decision arbitrary. Thus, both the punishment order and the order concerning the suspension period are contrary to statutory regulations, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. The plea of res judicata is untenable, as the earlier writ petition concerned only direction for deciding the representation and no adjudication on merits took place. 13 12. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the penalty order dated 14.10.2014, the appellate order dated 15.04.2015, and the order dated 08.09.2021 relating to treatment of the suspension period are vitiated by illegality and are accordingly quashed and set aside. As the original petitioner expired during the pendency of the proceedings, the respondents are directed to extend all consequential service and monetary benefits, including proper treatment of the suspension period and payment of all admissible dues, to the legal heirs of late Shri Gopal Prasad Jaiswal in accordance with law. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. 13. With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena