1 2026:CGHC:2722 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5881 of 2024 1. Rohan Kumar Tamboli S/o Raj Kumar Tamboli Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Jondara Police Station And Tahsil - Pachpedi District - Bilaspur, (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. Senior Manager Csc- E- Governance Service India Ltd. 238, Okhla Phase - Iii Behind Modi Mill, New Delhi 110020 2. District Manager Csc- E Governance Service India Ltd. Collectorate Office Mungeli District - Mungeli (C.G.) 3. Regional Manager Chhattisgarh State Gramin Bank Regional Office D.S.S. Complex Mungeli Naka District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Branch Manager Chhattisgarh State Gramin Bank Branch Jondra District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Atul Kumar S/o Arun Verma R/o Village Sonsari, Post - Son, Police Station Pachpedi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Chandra, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 and 4 : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 16.01.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the memo dated 21.08.2023 by which the petitioner’s Identity Document provided him to run Grahak Sewa Kendra by the Chhattisgarh State Gramin Bank has been deactivated and his application for restoring the same has also been rejected on 22.10.2024. 2. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the respondent MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2026.01.19 17:00:26 +0530 2 Chhattisgarh State Gramin Bank respondent No. 3 and 4 in pursuance of the policy issued by the Central Government has started Grahak Sewa Kendra to provide facilities to the villagers to acquaint them with banking process and also to assist them to operate their respective bank accounts. As per the policy, these facilities centers have been provided in various remote places so that the common villagers may go through the banking process and accordingly the petitioner was provided the said Customer Service Center which is in fiduciary relationship with the Bank. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was a false complaint against the petitioner that he is demanding money for purchase of the form and also for providing facilities in fact which are to be provided free of cost. He would further submit that the said allegations have not been proved as no fair inquiry has been conducted or no opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner which is violation of principle of natural justice. He would further submit that due to deactivation of ID he is suffering financial loss and thus he would pray for quashing of the impugned memo dated 21.08.2023 and 28.11.2024. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4 would submit that the writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable before this Court as there is no legal right accrued in favour of the petitioner as there was purely fiduciary relationship between them. On merit it has been contended that as per the guidelines issued in this regard and the practice to be adopted by the person who has been allowed to operate Grahak Sewa Kendra has to give all these facilities free of cost to common villagers so that the object of the 3 bank to connect with the common people at large number can be achieved, but by demanding money it is adversely affecting the object. 5. He would further submit that one of the customers of the Bank, namely Atul Kumar Verma has made complaint to the Bank and in pursuance of the complaint a fact finding inquiry was conducted and the officer of Bank has sought explanation from the petitioner as well as from the complainant. The complainant has informed the inquiry officer that the petitioner has demanded money from him and also misbehaved with him. The person who was conducting fact finding inquiry has asked the petitioner to clarify the contention of the complainant, but he has not responded to it or not participated in the proceeding, as such, on the basis of the material, in the fact finding inquiry, the allegation levelled against the petitioner has been found proved and accordingly, the inquiry officer has recommended for de-activation of ID provided to the petitioner. He would further submit that there is sufficient compliance of principle of natural justice, as such, there is no perversity and illegality on their part and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner and in fact his civil right is being adversely affected on account of non- compliance of principle of natural justice, as such, entire action deserves to be vitiated by this Court and to substantiate his 4 submission he has referred to the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in WP(S) No. 5521 of 2012 in case of H.K. Lagar vs. Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4 would submit that since sufficient compliance of natural justice has been done, no regular departmental inquiry is required, as such, the impugned orders are not liable to be interfered by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. Considering the rival submissions made by the parties, and also considering the fact finding inquiry has been conducted wherein the allegations have been found proved and there is fiduciary relationship between the petitioner and the Bank which cannot be broken in such a manner which may hamper the reputation of the institution, I am of the view that there is no perversity or illegality in passing the impugned orders by the respondent No. 3 and 4 and also considering that no indefeasible right has been accrued to the petitioner in continuing with the Grahak Sewa Kendra and present case is not the case where the principle of natural justice has to be strictly followed as it does not affect any civil right accrued to the petitioner, therefore, looking to the allegation and conduct of the petitioner which may adversely affect the business of the bank, I am of the view that no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish