1 / 14 2026:CGHC:25554 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved on: 09/04/2026 Delivered on: 22/06/2026 Uploaded on: 23/06/2026 WPS No. 6461 of 2025 Jagmohan Singh Rathiya S/o Late Ganda Ram Rathiya Aged About 66 Years R/o Post Chandrashekharpur, Tehsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through Chairman / Appellate Authority Head Office Plot No. 47, Sector-24, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Pin - 492018 2. General Manager (Administration) / Disciplinary Authority C.G. Rajya Gramin Bank Plot No. 47, Sector-24, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Pin - 492018 --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. K.N. Nande, Advocate with Mr. Kaustubh Nande, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate with Mr. Swapnil Thawaney, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge CAV Order 1. Petitioner by way of this writ petition has questioned the legality and sustainability of the order of removal from service which would not be a disqualification for future employment, Annexure P-12 dated PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA Date: 2026.06.23 10:49:18 +0530 2 / 14 08.05.2020 and the order Annexure P-1 dated 09.04.2025 passed by the appellate authority, whereby the appeal against the order of punishment is dismissed affirming the order of punishment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, while working as Branch Manager of Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank and posted at Dharamjaigarh Branch, was served with a show cause notice dated 16.05.2016 alleging gross negligence in discharge of his duties by violating and disregarding the guidelines of the Bank relating to sanction/disbursement of loans, thereby rendering recovery of a substantial amount of the Bank doubtful. Petitioner submitted reply to show cause notice on 13th July 2016. However, reply submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory and, consequently, departmental enquiry proceedings were initiated against him. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, pursuant to which the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 19.06.2019 (Annexure P- 2), imposing upon the petitioner the penalty of removal from service, though without disqualification for future employment. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before the Appellate Authority. The said appeal, however, came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby the order of removal from service was affirmed. Challenging the aforesaid orders, petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 19.06.2019 (Annexure P-2), appellate order dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-1). 3 / 14 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner with all consequential benefits and the entire retiral dues to be paid with full pensionary benefits. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deem fit and appropriate. 10.4 Cost of the petition.” 3. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the order of punishment is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. During enquiry proceedings, petitioner had submitted an application for change of Presenting Officer on the ground that, he would be an important witness to be examined in the enquiry proceedings. However, application submitted by petitioner was rejected on the ground that the documents are to be filed by the Presenting Officer. He also contended that in the enquiry proceedings when application is moved before the Enquiry Officer with a prayer that the Presenting Officer be permitted to be examined as witness by the delinquent employee, which was allowed but, the Enquiry Officer refused to got examine himself as witness. Enquiry Officer has not passed any order or issued any direction when the Presenting Officer refused to get himself examine as witness. He contended that not coming into the witness box of the important witness caused serious prejudice to the defense of the delinquent employee. He contended that the Presenting Officer was a person who took charge as Branch Manager of the Bank from petitioner and therefore there was many factual questions was to be put to him but he did not appear as witness and therefore petitioner could not get fair opportunity to defend the charges. In support of his 4 / 14 contention, he referred to the enquiry proceedings dated 08.02.2018 and 28.05.2018. 4. On the other hand, Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank would oppose the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that the enquiry proceedings was conducted following due process of law, hence, the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner is not sustainable. He would submit that he has obtained photocopy of entire note-sheet of the enquiry proceedings which is being placed before this Court for perusal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 6. This writ petition is filed against the order of appellate authority wherein the appellate authority has affirmed the punishment imposed upon petitioner by the disciplinary authority. Interference in the order of punishment passed after full fledged departmental enquiry, is very limited and therefore this Court is considering whether petitioner was given proper opportunity to defend the case or not, as one of the ground raised by counsel for petitioner. 7. Perusal of proceedings of enquiry placed before this Court by learned counsel for respondents would show that in the proceedings recorded on 08.02.2018, Enquiry Officer has considered the application submitted by the delinquent employee/ petitioner herein to remove Shri B.P. Agrawal as Presenting Officer. Reason pleaded for submission of such an application for removing the Presenting Officer is also 5 / 14 recorded and discussed by the Enquiry Officer in the proceeding dated 08.02.2018, which is extracted below for ready reference: “ : EO to AO आप DC का पत्र लाए है A AO to EO: जी है मैं सहैमैंति पत्र लाया है DD/4 A सथ है मैं अपनी सहैमैंति व आबध्त्ता का पत्र भी स!प रहै है DD/5 A सथ है मैं आपका$ प्रस्'का( अधि*कार श्री ब. प. अग्रवला का$ हैटानी/ का/ धिलाए पत्र स!प रहै हैA उन्है/ प्रस्'का( अधि*कार पद स/ मैं'क्त कार मैं'झ पर लागाए गाया/ आर$प$ का6 जीच आर8भी का6 जीए DD/6 A बठका आ*/ घं8टा/ का/ धिलाए स्थतिगा का6 जी हैA आ* घं8टा बद 12:45 पर प'नी> बठका प्रर8भी है?ईA व्यावस्थ : ब. प. अग्रवला PO का$ हैटानी/ का/ स8ब8* मैं/ पत्र प्रप्त है?आ DD/6 चCतिका श्री अग्रवला का स8ब8* आर$प$ स/ स*/ नीहैD है ब/ AO का/ बद शाखा *रमैंजीयागाढ़ मैंH शा. प्र. पद पर रहै/ हैA यातिद AO का$ तिकास दस्व/ज़ अथव वस्'स्थिस्थति का6 जीनीकार का6 आवश्याका है$गा $ शाखा *रमैंजीयागाढ़ का/ व(मैंनी शा. प्र. का/ मैंध्यामैं स/ इन्है/ प्रदया कार तिदया जीव/गाA अ> इनीका/ आव/दनी DD/6 का$ अस्वकार तिकाया जी हैA DC का/ स8ब8* मैं/ व्यावस्थ: DD/5 का/ स8ब8* मैं/ बचव प्रतितिनीधि* का/ रूप मैं/ श्री अरुण तिमैंश्री का$ बचव प्रतितिनीधि* अनी'मैं तिकाया जी हैA धिजीन्है/ आगा/ प्रत्या/का काया(वहै मैं/ DC का/ नीमैं स/ स8ब$धि* तिकाया जीएगाA DC to EO: मैंहै$दया हैमैंर/ द्वार प्रस्' DD/6 का प'नीरवला$कानी कारHA मैंहै$दया हैमैं आपका6 जीनीकार मैंH याहै थ्या लानी चहै/ है तिका प्रस्'का( अधि*कार मैंहै$दया शाखा *रमैंजीयागाढ़ का/ स्थया शा. प्र. का/ पद पर श्री जी/. एस. प्र. का/ पद पर श्री जी/. एस. रतिठया जी का/ बद पदस्थ थ/ आर$प$ स/ स8ब8धि* खा/दरS स/ स8पका( कारनी, वसCला प्रप्त कारनी, अन्व(नी कारनी, स8ब8धि* खा$ मैंH यातिद अतिनीयातिमैं है $ उच्च प्रब8*नी का$ सCचनी द/नी याहै इनीका/ दतियात्व स/ जी'ड़ा है?आ हैA यातिद याहै आर$प$ का$ प्रमैंतिण कारनी/ का काया( कार/गाH $ अपनी/ दतियात्व का$ आर$तिप अधि*कार का/ ऊपर डालानी/ का प्रयास कारHगाH 6 / 14 जी$ तिका लागाए गाया/ आर$प$ स/ स8बद्ध हैA इस कारण हैमैंर/ द्वार आपस/ अनी'र$* तिकाया गाया है तिका श्री ब. प. अग्रवला जी का$ PO का/ रूप मैं/ इस जीच काया(वहै स/ अलागा तिकाया जीएA EO to PO: आप प्रस्'तिकारण का/ धिलाए यार हैA : PO to EO आर$प$ स/ स8ब8धि* दस्व/ज़ प्रस्' कार रहै हैA दस्व/ज़ ग्रहैण कारनी/ का काष्ट कार/ सभी दस्व/ज़ एका प्रति मैंH हैA 8. From the aforementioned extracted portion of the enquiry proceeding dated 08.02.2018, it is clearly appearing that specific prayer is made by the petitioner herein/ delinquent employee that as the Presenting Officer had taken charge from him and he is apprehending that he would make an attempt to put responsibility and liability of shortcomings upon the delinquent employee. It is not disputed by learned counsel for respondents that the Presenting Officer, Shri B.P. Agrawal, has taken charge as Branch Manager of Dharamjaigarh Branch from petitioner. 9. Annexure P-9 is a document DD/6, which is an application submitted by the delinquent employee through the defense assistant before the Enquiry Officer for removing the Presenting Officer mentioning specific reasons that he could also be called as witness. Contents of the said application are extracted below for ready reference: “izfr] Jheku tkap vf/kdkjh egksn; foHkkxh; tkap & jk;x<+ egksn;] foHkkxh; tkap dk;Zokgh easa izLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh egksn; Jheku fo".kqizlkn vxzoky dks vyx djus ds laca/k esaA egksn; 'kk[kk /keZt;x<+ ls lacaf/kr eq> ij yxk;s x;s vkjksi ds foHkkxh; tkap dk;Zokgh esa izLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh egksn; Jh fo".kqizlkn vxzoky th izLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh ds :i esa layXu gSA egksn; esjs Ik’pkr 'kk[kk /kjet;x<+ esa 'kk[kk izca/kd dk pktZ Jh fo".kqizlkn vxzoky th }kjk xg.k fd;k x;k Fkk tks izR;{k ;k ijks{k :i 7 / 14 ls eq> ij yxk;s x;s vkjksi ls tqM+s gSA eq>s vius cpko esa iwoZ ,oa orZeku 'kk[kk izca/kd dks xokg crkSj cqyk;k tk ldrk gS vk vk{ksiksa ds laca/k esa fd;s x;s i=kpkj ds laca/k esa tkudkjh pkgh tk ldrh gSA vr% izkd`frd U;k; fl}karks ds vuqlkj vkjksiksa ls laacaf/kr dksbZ Hkh lsok;qDr tkap dk;Zokgh esa iz’kklfud in vuqlkj 'kkfey ugha gks ldrkA d`i;k Jheku fo".kq vxzoky th dks izLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh in ls eqDr dj foHkkxh; tkap djus gsrq esjk vkosnu Lohdkj dj mfpr O;oLFkk nsus dk d"V djsaxsaA fnukad 8@2@2018 Hkonh; lgh@& ts-,l- jkfB;k vf/kdkjh orZeku inLFk 'kk[kk xfu;kjh ftyk fcykliqj 10. Vide Annexure P-10, in the proceedings of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer while considering the application submitted by petitioner as DD/6 has rejected the same observing that as there was no direct allegation against the Presenting Officer and if the accused officer/ delinquent employee is required any document or information in factual aspect then it can be provided to the delinquent employee/ accused officer through present Branch Manager, Dharamjaigarh branch. The Enquiry Officer at that time has not considered, the reason assigned in the application appropriately i.e., the Presenting Officer who took immediate charge from petitioner, can be called as witness. 11. In the proceedings dated 28.05.2018, the Enquiry Officer put a question to the defense assistant as to whether he was ready to defend the Accused Officer or not, upon which the defense assistant has made clear submission that he is ready and has submitted that for the purpose of defense and to prove documents placed in record, he is required to examine the Presenting Officer who was earlier posted as Branch Manager, Dharamjaigarh after taking charge from delinquent employee and asked for the permission. The Enquiry Officer accepted 8 / 14 the prayer made by the defense assistant and has granted permission. However, the Presenting Officer has refused to examine himself as witness, mentioning that all the information had already been given by submitting documents, he has completed his work of presentation and therefore there is no necessity of examining the Presenting Officer separately. 12. From the aforementioned proceeding recorded by the Enqiury Officer, it is apparent that the Enquiry Officer has not made any observation on the refusal of the Presenting Officer nor has directed the Presenting Officer to enter into the witness box. 13. The disciplinary proceedings are quasi-judicial proceedings and Enquiry Officer is in the position of an independent adjudicator and is obliged to act fairly, impartially. The authority exercising quasi-judicial power has to act in good faith without bias, in a fair and impartial manner. In conducting disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent employee/charged officer, it is for the Enquiry Officer to follow the rules of natural justice, which means that Enquiry Officer should grant fair opportunity to the charged officer to defend the charges levelled against him. The delinquent employee/charged officer has to be given an opportunity to examine/cross-examine the witness which according to him would be an important witness in the facts of case to defend the charge. 14. Rules of natural justice have been recognized and developed as principles of administrative law. Natural justice has many facets, which is to ensure justice and fair play. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Suresh Koshy George Vs. University of Kerala and Ors. reported in 9 / 14 AIR 1969 SC 198, while considering the issue raised therein of principles of natural justice in a case of disciplinary action taken against a student, alleged to have adopted malpractice in the examination, has held that question whether the requirements of natural justice have been met by the procedure adopted in a given case must depend to a great extent on facts and circumstances of the case and observed thus: “7…….The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The question whether the requirements of natural justice have been met by the procedure adopted in a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of the case in point, the constitution of the Tribunal and the rules under which it functions.” 8. In Russel v. Duke of Norfolk , 1949-1 All ER 109 at p. 118, Tucker, L.J.observed : "There are, in my view, no words which are of universal application to every kind of inquiry and every kind of domestic tribunal. The requirements of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject matter that is being dealt with, and so forth. Accordingly, I do not derive much assistance from the definitions of natural justice which have been from time to time used, but, whatever standard is adopted, one essential is that the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his- case." 15. In case of A.K. Kraipak & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors . reported in (1969) 2 SCC 262, Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the principles of natural justice and held that the aim of the rules of natural 10 / 14 justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. Concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. Recognized two principles of natural justice i.e. no one shall be a judge in his own cause and no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing and observed as under : “20. The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it.The concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. In the past it was thought that it included just two rules namely (1) no one shall be a judge in his own case (Nemo debet esse judex propria causa) and (2) no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem). Very soon thereafter a third rule was envisaged and that is that quasi- judicial enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably. ………” 16. In case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772, Hon’ble Supreme Court had ruled that Enquiry Officer is a quasi-judicial authority. He has to act as an independent adjudicator and not as a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government and observed thus: “28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi- judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the 11 / 14 department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents. x x x 30. When a department enquiry is conducted against the Government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The enquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service.” 17. Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh while considering the issue raised before it of the question of vitiation of enquiry, when Enquiry Officer starts himself acting as prosecutor, in case of Union of India (UOI) Vs. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui reported in ILR [2004] MP 821, while elaborating fundamental principles of natural justice, enumerated seven well recognized facets and observed thus : “7. One of the fundamental principles of natural justice is that no man shall be a judge in his own 12 / 14 cause. This principle consists of seven well recognised facets: (i) The adjudicator shall be impartial and free from bias, (ii) The adjudicator shall not be the prosecutor, (iii) The complainant shall not be an adjudicator, (iv) A witness cannot be the Adjudicator, (v) The Adjudicator must not import his personal knowledge of the facts of the case while inquiring into charges, (vi) The Adjudicator shall not decide on the dictates of his Superiors or others, (vii) The Adjudicator shall decide the issue with reference to material on record and not reference to extraneous material or on extraneous considerations. If any one of these fundamental rules is breached, the inquiry will be vitiated. “ 18. Reverting back to facts of case, as discussed above, petitioner/charged employee has made an application for removing the Presenting Officer on the ground that Presenting officer took immediate charge from him, and Presenting Officer may be one of the witness to be called for. However, application was rejected. Petitioner thereafter participated in the enquiry proceedings and made request to call Presenting Officer as witness. The application submitted by petitioner was allowed by Enquiry Officer and petitioner was permitted to examine the Presenting Officer as witness considering the reasons assigned therein. Enquiry Officer thereafter had put question to Presenting Officer as to whether he is ready to record his statement/evidence, wherein, he submitted that recording of evidence of Presenting Officer is not proper stating that his work of presentation has already been completed. Relevant portion of the said proceeding recorded on 28.05.2018 is extracted below for ready reference: “EO to DC : D;k vki viuk cpko i{k izLrqr djus ds fy, rS;kj gS A 13 / 14 DC to EO : eS cpko dk;Z djus ds fy, rS;kj gwwwA egksn; eq>s cpko dk;Z ls lacaf/kr lk{; nLrkost ,oa xokgksa dh izLrqrhdj.k gsrq izLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh egksn; tks fd iwoZ 'kk0iz0 'kk[kk /keZt;x<+ ftUgksaus vkjksfir vf/kdkjh ts-,l- jkfB;k th ls dk;ZHkkj xzg.k fd;k Fkk mudh dFku dh vko’;drk yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa ds cpko gsrq vko’;d gS A d`i;k vuqefr iznku djsaA O;oLFkk % lk{; dh vuqefr gS A EO to PO : D;k vki dFkku nssus ds fy, rS;kj gS A PO to EO : izLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh ls dFku izkIr djuk foHkkxh; tkap ds lanHkZ esa vlaxr dk;Z gS A esjs izLrqrhdj.k dk dk;Z iw.kZ gks pqdk gS A vr% i`Fkd ls dFku djus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gS A” 19. In facts of case where petitioner from the initial stage of enquiry proceeding had made submission and requested for removing the Presenting Officer on the ground that he would be one of the necessary witness to be examine in the facts of case as mentioned therein, further during course of enquiry, petitioner made a request to Enquiry Officer to permit him to examine the Presenting Officer as witness which was allowed but Presenting Officer did not appear as witness and recorded his evidence, which in the opinion of this Court, has caused prejudice to petitioner to defend in appropriate manner as witness which he was pressing upon since beginning of departmental enquiry, has adversely affected right of petitioner to defend the charges. 20. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case as also decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court , in the considered opinion of this Court, order of punishment passed against the petitioner is in violation of principles of natural justice which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Consequently order Annexure P-1 passed by the Appellate 14 / 14 Authority, as also order of punishment of the Disciplinary Authority are not sustainable. Accordingly, both the orders i.e. order passed by Disciplinary Authority dated 19.06.2019 (Annexure P-2) and order passed by Appellate Authority dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) are hereby quashed. Respondent authorities will be at liberty to initiate enquiry proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with law from the stage it got vitiated, if they so desire. Petitioner will be entitled for continuity of service and other consequential benefits. However, issue of back-wages is to be considered by the respondent authorities separately, in accordance with law. 21. Writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge pwn