1 CGHC010214002018 2026:CGHC:39011 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4587 of 2018  Dharmendra Chandrakar S/o Shri Awadhram Chandrakar Aged About 33 Years Samiti Prabandhak (Removed) Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Pirid, Branch Arjunda, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. R/o Indira Nagar, Chikhli, Post - Mohannagar, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Cooperative Societies, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh. 4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Sahakari Kendra Bank, Maryadit, G.E. Road, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate For State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Abhinav Tiwari, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 03.09 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.09.07 14:21:59 +0530 2 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and quash the impugned order dated 14.05.2018 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 08.02.2017 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Tribunal. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to remand the matter back to the Tribunal if deems fit and proper for fresh consideration on the legal grounds and other grounds as raised for by the petitioner in its application under Section 78(2) of the Co-operative Society Act, 1960. 10.4 Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances may also be granted to the petitioner.” 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Samiti Prabandhak at Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Pirid, Branch Arjunda, District Durg on 31.01.2009. His services were governed with District Cooperative Central Bank Employees Service Rules. In the year 2010-11, during paddy procurement, shortage of 1000.23 quintals of paddy was dug out from Center Pirid and 1984.81 quintals of paddy from Sub-Center Kurdi. Both the centers were under control and supervision of the petitioner. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner pursuant to minutes of meeting of the Board of Directors dated 30.11.2013, whereby he was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,17,715.81/- towards shortage of paddy. 3. The petitioner was placed under suspension by respondent No. 4 vide order dated 30.11.2013, and subsequently, reply to show-cause notice was filed by him on the same date. An article of charge was issued according to the service rules on 11.01.2014, which was duly replied by the petitioner. Respondent Bank appointed Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer vide order dated 12.02.2014. The petitioner was served with notice to appear 3 before the Inquiry Officer on 12.05.2014. The Inquiry Officer completed inquiry and submitted its report before the disciplinary authority on 23.05.2014, and subsequently, an order of termination from services was passed by the respondent No. 4 vide order dated 12.06.2014. The petitioner raised a dispute according to the provisions of Section 55(2) of Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, which was allowed vide order dated 06.11.2015. An Appeal was preferred by respondent No. 4 before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, which was allowed vide order dated 11.05.2016. The petitioner herein challenged said order by filing second appeal before the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Tribunal, which was dismissed vide order dated 08.02.2017, and subsequently, review petition was also dismissed vide order dated 14.05.2018. The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Cooperative Tribunal dated 08.02.2017 and 14.05.2018 in this petition. 4. Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate would contend that the procedure to conduct a departmental enquiry against delinquent employee is prescribed under Rule 58 of Service Rules. He would submit that though petitioner was served with article of charge, but list of witnesses was never served upon the petitioner. He would contend that the Inquiry Officer did not examine single witness to prove guilt of the petitioner and filed enquiry report, wherein all the allegations were found proved. He would submit that based on such enquiry report, the disciplinary authority inflicted a major penalty. He would submit that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the above aspect of the matter and dismissed the second appeal preferred by the petitioner and also dismissed the review petition. 4 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Bank would oppose. Mr. Tiwari would submit that the petitioner was served with an article of charge along with relevant documents. He would submit that in a departmental enquiry, petitioner was permitted to participate, and subsequently enquiry report was submitted, wherein allegations were found proved. He would submit that Inquiry Officer and disciplinary authority complied with the procedure contemplated in Rule 58 of Service Rules. He would submit that as the petitioner participated in the departmental enquiry, he cannot be permitted to question the procedure followed by the Inquiry Officer. He would submit that there is concurrent finding recorded by the disciplinary authority and the learned Tribunal, and therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. Rule 58 of Service Rules describes competent authority & procedure to inflict penalty and same is reproduced herein-below :- "५८. दण्ड हेतु सक्षम अधिकारी. (एका) किसी भी र्मचा री कि रुद्ध सी कियर्म ५६ र्म र्णित य , त्रुकिय तथा त्य लि!ए सी कियर्म ५७ अधी सीक्षर्म अधिधी री द्वा री दण्ड सी,बं,धी य ही / जा सी गी. र्मचा रिरीय औरी उन्ही दण्ड द लि!ए सीक्षर्म अधिधी रिरीय / श्रेणिय , सी कियर्म ६१ (छः:) र्म द गीई ही<. (द) किसी र्मचा री = गीम्भीरी दुरी चारी लि!ए तबं त दण्डिण्डत हीA किय जा गी जाबं त कि जा ,चा हीत अधिधी त अधिधी री द्वा री किम् सी री जा ,चा री र्मचा री कि रुद्ध 5 दुरी चारी द=ष लिसीद्ध हीA री दिदय जा त :- (१) सीक्षर्म अधिधी री अथा उसी द्वा री अधिधी त अधिधी री र्मचा री = प्रा रूप IV र्म गीम्भीरी दुरी चारी लि!ए आरी=प पत्रु दगी औरी सी धी री दुरी चारी लि!ए प्रा रूप V र्म आरी=प पत्रु दगी . आरी=प पत्रु र्म दुरी चारी तथा उसी कि रुद्ध परिरीण्डिHथाधितय Hपष्ट उल्!ख किय जा गी औरी उसी Hपष्टरी र्म ,गी जा गी . (२) र्मचा री = उसी Hपष्टरी प्राHतत री हीत सीर्मय, जा= कि री बंत ओ सीNचा पत्रु र्म किर्दिदष्ट ही=गी , दिदय जा गी . (३) र्मचा री = अप बंचा H य, री अथा इसी हीत बं< किसी अन्य र्मचा री / सीही यत ! / अर्मधित ही=गी किन्त किसी बं हीरी व्यक्तिTत = र्मचा री बंचा हीत पUरी री / अर्मधित हीA ही=गी. (४) उ प्रारी = छः=ड़री णिजार्म र्मचा री उसी कि रुद्ध !गी य गीए अलिभीय=गी = H री री !त हीU, र्मचा री = उसी बंचा हीत सी क्ष्य प्राHतत री तथा किसी सी क्ष्य , णिजासी/ सी क्ष परी अलिभीय=गी आधी रिरीत ही= प्राधित परीक्ष य N परीक्ष री / अर्मधित द जा गी. (५) सी क्ष्य / गी ही सी री लि!ख जा गी औरी उसी सीम्बंन्धिन्धीत र्मचा री सीर्मक्ष पढ़ा जा गी . (६) दण्ड आदश लि!खिखत र्म ही=गी तथा सीक्षर्म अधिधी री हीHत क्षरी सी किगीधिर्मत किय जा गी . दण्ड 6 सीम्बंन्धी प रिरीत आदश / ए प्राधित सीम्बं,धिधीत र्मचा री = द जा गी. (तुन) री बंत ओ सीNचा पत्रु र्म प्राHत कि त किय गीय दण्ड सी अधिधी दण्ड हीA दिदय जा सी गी , किन्त र्म दिदय जा सीत हीU.” 8. Bare reading of above-quoted provisions would make it clear that the disciplinary authority or the competent authority has to serve article of charge on delinquent employee specifying the misconduct. Such an employee shall be granted time to file reply to article of charge. The delinquent employee in the course of the departmental enquiry can appoint a defence assistant. Where delinquent employee denies allegations, he shall be permitted to give evidence or opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the prosecution or department. The list of evidence shall be read over to the delinquent employee, subsequently enquiry report shall be served upon such an employee, and thereafter, a show-cause notice specifying penalty shall be issued. 9. Perusal of documents would show that though an article of charge was issued to the petitioner, but list of witnesses was not accompanied to such show- cause notice. Perusal of the documents would further reveal that the department did not examine a single witness to prove the allegations made against the petitioner. The findings were recorded by the Inquiry Officer based on documentary evidence alone. The petitioner was also not permitted to examine his witnesses, the authors of the documents relied upon were not examined, and thus, the procedure contemplated under Rule 58 of Service Rules was not followed by the respondent Bank. The Deputy Registrar 7 considered the above stated lacunas in the departmental enquiry and allowed the dispute raised by the petitioner, but the first appellate authority reversed the findings recorded by the learned Deputy Registrar and learned Cooperative Tribunal maintained the findings recorded by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. 10. The Hon’ble Surpeme Court in the matter of State of U.P. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 held that inquiry proceedings cannot be conducted with a closed mind contrary to the procedure prescribed in the rules and 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. Relevant para 30 is reproduced herein-below :- “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 inquiry 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.” 11. In reply to show-cause notice, the petitioner had denied the allegations made against him, and thus, there was burden upon the Inquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority to prove all allegations made against the petitioner by leading cogent evidence. As no witness was examined, the entire 8 departmental enquiry got vitiated. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State Bank of India vs. Samarendra Kishore Endow reported in (1994) 2 SCC 537 in para 10 held as under :- “10. On the question of punishment, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the punishment awarded is excessive and that lesser punishment would meet the ends of justice. It may be noticed that the imposition of appropriate punishment is within the discretion and judgment of the disciplinary authority. It may be open to the appellate authority to interfere with it but not to the High Court or to the Administrative Tribunal for the reason that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is similar to the powers of the High Court under Article 226. The power under Article 226 is one of judicial review. It "is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was made." (Per Lord Brightman in Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans 1982(3) All E.R. 141 and H.B. Gandhi, Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority v. M/s. Gopinath & Sons 1992 Supp. (2) S.C.C. 312. In other words the power of judicial review is meant "to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches on a matter which it is authorised by law to decide for itself, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court". (Per Lord Marylebone in Chief Constable v. Evans). In fact is service matters, it was held 9 by this Court as far back as 1963 in State of A. P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao,(1964) 2 LLJ 150 that: The High Court is not constituted under Article 226 of the Constitution 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 inquiry is held by an authority competent 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 inquiry 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 10 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 the 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...under Article 226 of the Constitution.” 13. Having considered the facts and law discussed-above, the orders passed by the Cooperative Tribunal are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are hereby quashed and the order passed by the Deputy Registrar dated 06.11.2015 is hereby restored. 14. In result, this petition is hereby allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant