1 2026:CGHC:27396 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4688 of 2021 1 - Vinay Kant Tyagi S/o Shri Vijendra Singh Tyagi, Aged About 30 Years R/o Sorid Nagar, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari At Present R/o 248, Avinash Garden City, Semaria, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through - The Chairman, Mahadevghat Road, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Regional Manager, C.G. Rajya Gramin Bank, Regional Office, Dhamtari, Ravi D.J. Building, 1st Floor, Ambedkar Chowk Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3 - Shri Ram Kumar Patra Officer Grade Iii, C.G. Rajya Gramin Bank, Kanker Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate Assisted by Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 03.07.2026 1) Heard. 2) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 2 “10.1 To call for the records of the case for kind perusal of this Hon'ble court. 10.2 To issue an appropriate writ or order and declare that the order dated 24.06.2020 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 24.08.2020 (Annexure P-2) are illegal, bad in law and are liable to be set aside. 10.3 To issue an appropriate writ or order and quash the order dated 24.06.2020 (Annexure P- 1) and order dated 24.08.2020 (Annexure P-2). 10.4 To issue an appropriate writ or order and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential reliefs including the back wages. 10.5 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 3) Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Office Assistant under respondent No.1 vide order dated 07.11.2015. His services were transferred from Makdi Branch to Regional Office Dhamtari in the month of February, 2017. A show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 05.09.2018, wherein, following allegations were made : आरोप पत्र "1. खाता क्रमांक 5008075278 कली बाई क खाता मां दिनांक 04.02.2016 क रु 500/ पांच सौ मांत्र आहरिता कनां क प्रविष्ठी आपांक द्वा पांरिता क गई जबाविक उक्ता खाता विनांष्क्रि'क्रय था। खाता मां विबानां क य सौ , आधा, मांबाइली नांबा प्रप्ता विकए भु0गतानां विकय गय जिजसौमां हस्ताक्ष क मिमांलीनां नांह5 विकय गय। 2. इसौ खाता क्र 5008075278 कली बाई मां आपांक द्वा दिनांक 20.06.2016 क ए टी7 एमां कर्ड9 ज विकय गय जिजसौक क्रमांक 6072149902193593 ह:, जिजसौक मांध्यमां सौ विभिभुन्न असौ पां शि@ विनांकली गई। ए टी7 एमां ज कता सौमांय विकसौ भु प्रक क खाता धाक सौ 3 आनां, पांता नांह5 ली गई ह:। 3. खाता क्रमांक 77009753294 जनांपां पांचयताA कक  मां आपांक द्वा 03.10.2016 क ए टी7 एमां. क्रमांक 6072149902208888 ज विकय गय जिजसौमां भु खाताधाक क आनां, पांता नांह5 ली गई ह:। इसौ खाता मां भु विभिभुन्न विताशिथायB पां ए टी7 एमां क मांध्यमां सौ शि@ विनांकली गई ए बा मां आपांक द्वा इसौ खाता मां दिनांक 12/04/2017 क अपांनां खाता सौ रु 44000/चशिलीसौ हज मांत्र शि@ अतारिता क शि@ जमां क गई। 4. दिनांक 01/03/2016 क ग्रामां पांचयता नां द्वा रु 20800 / ग्रा सौ हज आठ सौ मांत्र, 208 पां @नां खाता खालीक खाताB मां जमां हता0 शि@ 7 गई। आपांक द्वा खाता खालीक शि@ जमां नांह5 क गई औ शि@ अपांनां पांसौ खा ली गई। इसौ प्रक आपांक द्वा शि@ गबानां क ली गई। घटीनां ज्ञाता हनां पां आपांक द्वा दिनांक 08/01/2018 क अपांनां बाचता खाता क्रमांक 77049195195 सौ रु 20800 / क 208 पां @नां खाताB मां जमां विकय गय।" The petitioner filed reply to the show-cause notice on 05.11.2018 and admitted allegations made against him. He took a plea that on instructions of superior authorities, he opened bank account and issued ATM Card in favour of Kalibai and Janpad Panchayat, Kanker. It was also stated that a sum of Rs.20,800/- was refunded to Gram Panchayat, Nara. 4) The disciplinary authority appointed Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer and thereafter, an inquiry was conducted, wherein, the petitioner was afforded opportunity of hearing and the petitioner again admitted allegations made against him. The Inquiry Officer submitted its inquiry report before the disciplinary authority and second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 02.05.2020, which was also replied by the petitioner. The disciplinary authority concurred with the findings of inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer and inflicted penalty of removal 4 from services vide order dated 24.06.2020.The petitioner challenged said order by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed vide order dated 24.08.2020 and against said order, this petition has been preferred. 5) Mr. Bharat, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner and allegations leveled against him were not proved by leading cogent evidence. He would further submit that inquiry report was also not served upon the petitioner. He would contend that the disciplinary authority appointed a Scale-III Officer as the Inquiry Officer; however, according to the Bank Regulations, the Inquiry Officer must be a Scale-IV officer and therefore, entire enquiry got vitiated. It is further argued that the department failed to examine Kalibai or any officer from the Janpad Panchayat or Gram Panchayat, and relevant documents were not produced, therefore, order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 24.06.2020 and affirmed by the Appellate authority dated 24.08.2020 are not sustainable in the eyes of law and may be quashed. 6) On the other hand, Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose. He would submit that initially, show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 05.09.2018 and in reply, the petitioner admitted all allegations levelled against him. He would further contend that before Inquiry Officer during course 5 of inquiry, the petitioner again admitted the allegations made against him. He would submit that when there is clear admission on the part of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority rightly inflicted penalty of removal from services of the petitioner. He would contend that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing and there was compliance of principles of natural justice. He would further submit that the Appellate Authority has affirmed the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority and thus, there is concurrent findings, therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 7) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8) Perusal of the documents would show that, in reply to the show-cause notice dated 05.11.2018, the petitioner clearly admitted his guilt and stated that, on the instructions of his superior authorities, he issued an ATM card in favour of Kalibai and opened her bank account without KYC. He further admitted that an ATM card was also issued by him in favour of Janpad Panchayat, Kanker, without proper verification. Though, it is stated by the petitioner in his reply that the amount deposited by Gram Panchayat, Nara was refunded but amount received from said Gram Panchayat was not deposited in its bank account. During the course of inquiry, the petitioner again admitted his guilt before the Inquiry Officer and failed to examine any superior authorities 6 on whose instructions the bank account of Kalibai was opened and ATM cards were issued in favour of Kalibai and Janpad Panchayat, Kanker. 9) The scope of interference in the matter of departmental inquiry while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited. This Court can interfere with the order inflicting penalty, if it has not been passed by the competent authority; principles of natural justice have not been followed and procedure prescribed in Rules have been contravened. 10) In the present case, there is no allegation that the petitioner was not provided proper opportunity by the Inquiry Officer. It is not a case of the petitioner that the authority who inflicted penalty was not competent. With regard to appointment of Scale-III officer as enquiry officer, no objection was raised either before disciplinary authority or before Enquiry Officer. After conclusion of enquiry, such objection is of no significance. 11) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Others Versus P. Gunasekaran1 while dealing with the scope of interference in service matters held as under :- “12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings. the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the 1. (2015) 2 SCC 610 7 evidence. The High Court can only see whether: (a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority; (b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; (c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings: (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case: (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; (i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence. 13.Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i) reappreciate the evidence; (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence; (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be: (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience. 14.In one of the earliest decisions in State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Chitra Venkata Rao, reported in (1975) 2 SCC 557 many of the above principles have been discussed and it has been concluded thus: (AIR pp. 1726-27, para 7) "7.…….The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution as a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant: it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority 8 competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion, or on similar grounds. But the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution." 12) Likewise, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Others Versus Datta Linga Toshatwad2 held that penalty inflicted in a departmental inquiry can be interfered by the High Court while exercising power under Article 226 of Constitution of India if the order has been passed by an incompetent authority or if procedure to inflict the penalty has not been followed or if the penalty if disproportionate looking to the misconduct. 2. (2005) 13 SCC 709 9 13) In view of the aforesaid legal positions established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is very much clear that High Courts can only interfere in the matters of departmental inquiries exercising the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if the penalty shocks the conscience or the procedure prescribed under the rules have not been followed or the principles of natural justice have not been followed. 14) Taking into consideration the facts of the present case, the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority and further law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-referred matters, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders impugned. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha