1 CGHC010279072026 2026:CGHC:36105 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5601 of 2026 1 - Kunal Kant Ghosh S/o Late Ashish Kumar Ghosh Aged About 42 Years Officer Scale- 1chhattisgarh Gramin Bank, Branch- Janakapur, Distt.- Koria (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank Through Its Chairman, Corporate Office- Plot No. 47 Sector 24- Atal Nagar New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 492018 2 - Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank Through Its General Manager, Corporate Office- Plot No. 47 Sector 24- Atal Nagar New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 492018 3 - Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank Through Its Regional Manager, Regional Office, Near Mundra Kunj, G.E. Road Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 491441 Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. K.N. Nande, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 13/08/2026 1. By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian, the petitioner is seeking a direction towards the respondent authorities to decide the reply and clarification dated AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.08.14 18:36:51 +0530 2 31/03/2026 of the petitioner and withdraw the second show cause notice dated 01/07/2026. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that for the same cause of action, two show cause notices have been issued by the authorities which is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. 3. On the last date of hearing, this Court directed the respondents/Bank to file personal affidavit of the competent Officer to explain as to why two show cause notices have been issued to the petitioner with regard to the same set of facts. 4. Pursuant to the said order, the General Manager of the respondent Bank filed its affidavit on 12/08/2026 wherein it has been stated as under at paras 5, 6 and 7:- “5. That the Respondent Bank respectfully submits that the said communication dated 23.03.2026 was not a formal disciplinary show-cause notice issued by the competent authority under the applicable service regulations. The Petitioner, being a Branch Manager and thus an officer of the Bank, the competent authority under the applicable service regulations to issue a formal show- cause notice in respect of disciplinary proceedings in petitioner' case is the General Manager. 6. That thereafter, upon consideration of the matter, the competent authority issued a formal show-cause notice to the Petitioner on 01.07.2026 in respect of the allegations relating to the aforesaid transactions and alleged misconduct. 7. That the Respondent Bank respectfully submits that the show-cause notice dated 01.07.2026 is the formal disciplinary notice issued by the competent authority and 3 the same cannot, therefore, be treated as a second show- cause notice issued on the same cause merely because an earlier communication dated 23.03.2026 had sought Explanation from the Petitioner. As already mentioned above, the Explanation dated 23.03.2026 was sort of a preliminary enquiry conducted by the Regional manager at his administrative level and the same is not part of any disciplinary proceeding formally initiated by the bank as per the service regulations.” 5. In the aforesaid affidavit, the General Manger of the respondent/Bank categorically stated that the earlier alleged notice dated 23/03/2026 was a communication wherein an explanation has been called from the petitioner for preliminary enquiry. As far as the notice dated 01/07/2026 issued by the competent authority for disciplinary proceeding is concerned, the same is a formal show-cause notice to the Petitioner in respect of the allegations relating to the certain irregularities/misconduct committed by the petitioner with regard to disbursement of amounts to different account numbers of the concerned debtors for the period between 23/09/2025 to 26/02/2026. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts contended by the General Manager of the respondent/Bank, it is very clear that after issuance of show-cause notice dated 23/03/2026 for the purpose of preliminary enquiry, the formal show-cause notice dated 01/07/2026 has been issued for contemplation of departmental enquiry by the competent authority. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that for the same set of facts and charges, two show- 4 cause notices have been issued is not correct. Once the show- cause notice issued for disciplinary action by the competent authority, the earlier or previous show-cause notice issued for preliminary enquiry has become redundant. 7. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Amardeep