1 2026:CGHC:22858 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4141 of 2026 Siddhartha Shanker Misra S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Misra Aged About 39 Years Presently Posted As S B I Scale Iii Manager, Dhar (M.P.) R/o Bandichodh Marg Nougav, Infornt Shaskiya Nursery Near Mali Garden Dhar, Tehsil And District- Dhar (M.P.) (Surname Correctly Mentioned ) . Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Bank Of India Through Its Chairman Corporate Centre, Mumbai 2 - Deputy Managing Director And C D O (H R) S B I Corporate Centre Mumbai. 3 - Deputy General Manager, ( B And O) State Bank Of India, Administrative Office Byron Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Chief General Manager (Appellate Authority, Appeal And Review Cell, Local Head Office Hoshangabad Road Bhopal (M.P.) 5 - General Manager (N W -Ii) And Appointing Authoritly Vigilance Department Ivth Floor Local Head Office Hoshangabad Road Bhopal (M.P.) 6 - Regional Manager State Bank Of India R B O- 2 Second Floor, Administrative Building Bairon Bazar , Raipur (C.G.) 7 - Regional Manager, State Bank Of India R B O - 2 Bhilai Regional Business Office, Region - 2, 1st Floor State Bank Building Sector- 1 Bhilai District- Durg (C.G.) 8 - Inquiring Authority, State Bank Of India, Vigilance Department Local Head Office Bhopal (M.P.) RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.05.14 17:38:33 +0530 2 Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rudra Pratap Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advoate Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Order on Board 14/05/2026 1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “10.1 Quash/set-aside the impugned orders/communications dated 29.01.2024 (Annexure P/11), 03.07.2023 (Annexure P/13) and 08.04.2026 (Annexure P/15), whereby the request for condonation of delay and review has been rejected, being arbitrary, illegal unsustainable in law. 10.2 Quash/set-aside the Appellate Authority Order dated the Disciplinary 20.05.2020 (Annexure P/5) and Authority Order dated 12.02.2020 (Annexure P/4), being perverse, based on no evidence and passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 10.3 Direct the respondents to condone the delay in filing the review petition under Rule 69 of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992 and to consider and decide the review application of the petitioner on merits, within a time- bound period. 10.4 Direct the respondents to grant all consequential service benefits to the petitioner, including restoration of pay, increments, seniority and promotional benefits, as if the impugned disciplinary action had never been passed. 10.5 Pass such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and 3 circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an officer of the State Bank of India having an unblemished service record and has discharged his duties diligently throughout his service career. It is submitted that though the petitioner became eligible for promotion, the same was denied arbitrarily and thereafter a charge-sheet came to be issued against him in relation to certain allegations pertaining to his tenure as Branch Manager. It is further submitted that prior to initiation of disciplinary proceedings, independent inquiries had exonerated the petitioner and found the allegations to be unsubstantiated. During the departmental inquiry also, most of the charges were held to be not proved and only one allegation was partially proved. However, the Disciplinary Authority, without assigning cogent reasons, disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Authority and imposed a major penalty upon the petitioner, which was subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Authority in a mechanical manner. Learned counsel further submits that immediately after receipt of the appellate order, the petitioner preferred a review application and continuously pursued the matter. However, due to procedural difficulties and non-availability of the online portal, delay occurred in completing the process. It is submitted that despite there being sufficient explanation and recommendation for condonation of delay, the respondents rejected the petitioner's request solely on the ground of delay without examining the matter on merits. It is therefore contended that the impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary and deserves interference by this Court. 4 3. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record. 5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the limited issue involved in the present petition is with regard to rejection of the petitioner's request for condonation of delay and consequential non- consideration of his review application on merits. 6. From the pleadings on record, it appears that the petitioner had preferred a review application immediately after the appellate order and had continuously pursued the matter by submitting representations before the competent authorities. It is also the specific case of the petitioner that due to procedural difficulties and non-availability of the online portal, the review application could not be processed within the prescribed time and thereafter the same was submitted in the manner directed by the authorities themselves. 7. This Court further finds that the request for condonation of delay appears to have been rejected primarily on the ground of delay without adverting to the explanation furnished by the petitioner and without examining whether sufficient cause had been made out for condonation of such delay. The object of procedural requirements is to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat substantive rights on mere technicalities. When an explanation is offered by a party and the matter pertains to 5 consideration of statutory remedies available under the applicable service rules, the same ought to receive due consideration by the competent authority. 8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the disciplinary proceedings or on the correctness of the findings recorded by the authorities, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be served if the matter is remitted to the competent authority for fresh consideration. 9. Accordingly, the impugned communications/orders rejecting the petitioner's request for condonation of delay are set aside. The matter is remanded to the competent authority/respondents for reconsideration of the petitioner's request for condonation of delay and thereafter, if found appropriate, to consider and decide the review application on its own merits, in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 10. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul