1 CGHC010135212025 2026:CGHC:29083 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 74 of 2025 1 - The Chairman Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank H.O. - Mahadevghat Road, Sunder Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin - 492001 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Shri Jagmohan Rathiya R/o Village And Post Chandrashekarpur, Tehsil - Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh Pin - 496665 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Shri P.R. Patankar, Advocate. For Respondent/s : Shri K.N. Nande, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 10.07.2026 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records for its kind perusal in Case No.PGA-06/23 from the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside /quash the impugned order dated 17.01.25 NIRMALA RAO 2 (Annexure P-8) and as a consequence the order dated 26.05.23 passed by the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 being illegal and erroneous. 10.3 That, cost of the petition be allowed. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also be granted.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent, while working as an Officer Scale II as Branch Manager at Dharamjaigarh Branch of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank committed reckless sanctioning of loans under the Mudra Rin Yojana and he exceeded the prescribed target and sanctioned loans in 205 cases amounting to Rs.143.25 lakhs without following the prescribed guidelines. He would contend that a departmental enquiry was initiated against the respondent and penalty of removal from service was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 19.6.2019. He would submit that respondent – Jagmohan Singh Rathiya, preferred an appeal, which was dismissed. Against the said order, WPS No.5074 of 2020 was filed, which was disposed of vide order dated 9.1.2025 whereby the matter was remitted back to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration under Regulation 50 of the Regulation, 2013, with a direction to decide the appeal strictly in accordance with law. He would further submit that the Appellate 3 Authority vide order dated 9.4.2025, affirmed the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, against which WPS No.6461 of 2025 was filed. He would submit that the respondent, while working as Branch Manager, caused a loss to the Bank to the tune of Rs.1.32 crores and therefore, was not entitled for grant of gratuity and the Controlling Authority committed an error of law while directing payment thereof. It is further contended that the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, erroneously affirmed the finding recorded by the Controlling Authority. It is also contended that the amount of gratuity alongwith the interest component, has already been deposited. He would pray to allow this petition. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority were challenged by respondent - Jagmohan Singh Rathiya by filing WPS No.6461 of 2025, which was allowed vide order dated 23.6.2026. He would submit that, in the said writ petition, both the orders were quashed, and liberty was granted to the respondent- Bank to initiate departmental enquiry proceedings against Jagmohan Singh Rathiya in accordance with law, from the stage at which the enquiry stood vitiated, if it so desired. He would contend that as the penalty inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority have already been quashed, the 4 respondent may be granted liberty to withdraw the gratuity amount. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5) In the present case, the Controlling Authority directed the employer to make payment of gratuity to the employee. The said order has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The employee was removed from service on account of the financial irregularities allegedly committed by him, as he had sanctioned numerous loans causing a loss to the petitioner- Bank to the tune of Rs.16,65,259/- without following the prescribed procedure. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. However, both the said orders have been quashed in WPS No.6461 of 2025. It is not in dispute that the liberty has been granted to the petitioner- Bank herein to initiate a fresh departmental enquiry from the stage at which the earlier enquiry stood vitiated. Since the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are no longer in existence, the contention made by counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 6) Having considered the above-stated facts, particularly the fact that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the 5 Appellate Authority have already been quashed, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference. 7) Accordingly, petition filed by the petitioner-Bank fails and is hereby dismissed. The interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi