1 2025:CGHC:14745 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1432 of 2019 Virendra Kumar Tiwari S/o Late K. L. Tiwari Aged About 56 Years R/o Chandan Awas, Plot No. 2/50 Rajkishore Nagar, P. O. Secl, P. S. Sarkanda, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Presently Working As Branch Mangar, Jila Sahkari, Kendriya Bank Mydt. Bilaspur, Head Office, Nehru Chowk Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 495001. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary To The Government Co-Operative Department Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Registrar Co- Operative Societies, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Bilaspur, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Reserve Bank Of India Through Its Executive Director Central Office Building Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai- 400001, District : Mumbai, Maharashtra 5 - Regional Director Reserve Bank Of India Subhashish Parisar, Satya Prem Vihar, Mahadev Ghat Road, Sunder Nagar, Raipur-492013 Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Assistant General Manager Department Of Co- Operative Banking Supervision Office Of The Regional Director, Reserve Bank Of India, Subhashish Parisar Satya Prem Vihar, Mahadev Ghat Road Sunder Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492013., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Dillip Kumar Swain, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 & 2 For Respondent No.3 : : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate. 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 27/03/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. This petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner challenging the order dated 03.10.2018 (Annexure- P/1), whereby the petitioner has been held guilty in departmental enquiry proceeding and imposed penalty of withholding five increments with cumulative effect under the ैሮक क्቞चारी (नियो ज, निैሮध एवं उक कयो ቝኌनि) नियो्቞, 1982 and it has also been ordered to take steps for recovery of amount. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in departmental enquiry proceeding, procedure of natural justice has not been complied with, which is breach of fundamental rights of petitioner, despite that, crores of rupees has been ordered to be recovered against the petitioner, therefore the instant petition may be admitted for hearing, though alternative remedy is available under the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 & Rules, 1962. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 would submit that though in appropriate cases like the cases in which, an order is passed de-horing the principles of natural justice or without jurisdiction etc., under writ jurisdiction such matter can be considered by the High Court, but if efficacious alternative remedy is available, then statutory provisions cannot be bypassed. He would further submit that the impugned order holding guilty to the petitioner and taking steps for recovery of amount can be challenged by raising dispute / filing appeal before the Registrar under Section 55 (2) of the C.G. Co-operative 3 Societies Act, 1960 (henceforth referred to as “the Act, 1960”), therefore the instant petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents No.1 & 2 has also extended his support to the contention made by learned counsel for the respondent No.3. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. In impugned departmental proceeding, charge/misconduct levelled against the petitioner is that, being Branch Manager of Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Head Office, Bilaspur and In-Charge of maintenance of Statutory Liquidity Ratio (SLR) and Cash Reserve Ratio (CRR), he failed to maintain SLR, therefore penalty of amount of Rs.1,34,21,056/- was imposed by the Reserve Bank of India against the Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur. 8. Having considered the allegation levelled against the petitioner, it can be considered in a better way by the Registrar, in the event of raising dispute before it under Section 55(2) of the Act, 1960, as dispute involves voluminous documents of banking process. It is also settled proposition of law that in departmental enquiry proceeding, Writ Court ought not sit as appellate authority. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court from time to time, in dealing with similar matters, consistently taken the view that when there is an alternate remedy available, and a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievance of the petitioner, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. 10. Madhya Pradesh High Court in paragraph-3 of its judgment in case of Ramnarayan Vs. Nanda Nagar Cooperative Society, reported in 2007 CJ (MP) 1426, has held thus:- 4 “3. It is for all these reasons, the petition on all grounds is held not maintainable and is, accordingly dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy under Section 55(2) of the Act. In case, if any such dispute is filed by the petitioner under Section 55(2) of the Act before the Deputy Registrar, then in such event, the same shall be disposed of by the concerned authority specified under the Act strictly in accordance with law.” 11. Division Bench of this Court in case of Heeralal Sahu and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others (Writ Appeal No.317/2020 decided on 26.08.2020), in paragraph-5, held as under:- “In the above facts and circumstances, we find absolutely no merit in the appeal to justify the scrutiny by this Court invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge relegating the Appellants/Writ Petitioners to pursue the matter by way of appeal in terms of Section 77 of the Act is quite in order and does not warrant any interference. It is open for the Appellants to pursue the remedy as aforesaid, in accordance with law.” 12. In instant case, petitioner has challenged the impugned order, whereby in departmental enquiry proceeding, he has been held guilty and imposed penalty of withholding the five increments with cumulative effect. It has also been ordered that steps be taken for recovery of amount. 13. The impugned order, so far as it relates to imputation of penalty is concerned, is very well challengeable by placing the matter/dispute before the Registrar under Section 55 (2) read with Section 64 of the Act, 1960. Thus, there is statutory alternative remedy available to the petitioner for redressal of his grievance, therefore, I do not feel inclined to entertain instant petition, hence, the same is dismissed as not maintainable reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to raise the dispute under Section 55 (2) of the Act, 1960. If such dispute is filed by petitioner within 5 a period of three months from today, the concerned authority shall decide the same in merits without raising any objection as to the limitation, particularly with regard to the period spent before this Court. Further, liberty is also left with the petitioner to challenge recovery proceeding initiated against him by filing appropriate writ petition, if so advised. 14. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed at motion stage. 15. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.03.29 11:30:10 +0530