Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:6932 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 58 of 2024 ---------- 1.Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Head Office Ranchi through its Chairman 2.General Manger, Jharkhand Gramin Bank Head Office, Ranchi 3.Regional Manager, Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Hazaribagh Region 4.Regional Manager, Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Giridih Region 5.Regional Manager, Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Gumla Region 6.Branch Manager, Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Piskamore Branch ..… Petitioners Versus Ram Pukar, son of Late Ram Charitra Sah, permanent resident of village Nonaura, P.O. Dumra via Belsand, P.S. Runni-Saidpur, District Sitamarhi, Bihar 843316, presently residing at C/o Shri D.Prasad, M-18, Harmu Housing Colony, Single Storied, Near Harmu Chowk, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Argora, District Ranchi, Jharkhand ….. Respondent ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioners : Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sahadeo Chowdhary, Advocate --------- C.A.V. on 17.11.2025 Pronounced on 09.01.2026 This Civil Review has been filed on behalf of the Employer-Management of the Jharkhand Gramin Bank for modification/correction of the order dated 09.01.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3209 of 2017 by this Court. 2. Heard Mr. A. Allam, learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioners-Bank ( i.e. the Respondent in the original writ petition) and Mr. Sahadeo Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:6932 ) 2 Chowdhary, learned counsel for the Respondent (i.e. petitioner in the original writ petition). 3. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-Bank ( i.e. Respondent in the writ petition) that the writ petitioner had prayed before this Hon’ble Court seeking relief against the Employer Bank to return Rs.20,830/- which has been illegally deducted from the retiral benefits of the petitioner on 30.11.2016 with respect to filing of return and imposing the penalty/fine against the writ petitioner on account of late filing of return forms no. 26Q and 24Q by the Regional Office itself. It is submitted that the prayer of the writ petitioner along with other statement was that it was the duty of the Regional Office to submit the return, which is contrary to law and contrary to facts also. It is submitted that the Bank has filed counter affidavit and has taken specific plea at Para 7(VIII) as follows:- “(VIII) That in reply to paragraph-3(VIII) it is stated that the sole responsibility of the Branch Managers to submit the return to the Income Tax Department in time because every branch has been assigned with a specific TAN number and the Branch Head is the drawing and disbursing authority of salary and he has to ensure to submit the return timely and Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:6932 ) 3 therefore he cannot escape from his liability by merely raising irrelevant issues.” 4. It is submitted that it has been narrated at Para-7 of the counter affidavit of the Bank that recovery is not a punishment. If due to some omission or commission of the employee the loss has occurred, then it has to be recovered from the concerned employee in view of the Regulation 39 (1) (iv) and other connected provisions mentioned in Regulation 39 of Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010. It is submitted that the said recovery would be made simply by giving a show-cause notice and nothing else. However, in the instant case the recovery was not made from the retiral dues of the petitioner, rather on the last working day of the petitioner the recovery was made as per Rules of the Bank and for which neither any proceeding is required nor any regular enquiry is to be made. So, the case of State of Punjab and Ors. Versus Rafiq Masih (While washer) and Ors. reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334 does not apply. 5. It is further submitted that Rafiq Masih (supra) is a case which applies with regard to government employees and not for the employees of the Bank. It is further submitted that each and every Branch has to file its return by using its TAN number and in the present case also the charges were with Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:6932 ) 4 regard to not filing the income tax return in time by the petitioner due to which a heavy loss has occurred and there are several other Branch Managers who have done the same mistakes due to which the erstwhile Jharkhand Gramin Bank had to pay a huge amount by way of penalty which has been distributed amongst the Branch Managers as per their nature of loss occurred by virtue of their own mistakes. It is submitted that there are several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the rules of the Bank shall apply with regard to the departmental proceeding and any other matters and which cannot be compared with the judgments of the cases wherein the employees of the State Governments are before this High Court and hence this Court may review the impugned order dated 09.01.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3209 of 2017. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner-Bank, in support of his contention, has relied upon certain judgments, which are as follows:- (i) Suresh Pathrella Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce reported in (2006) 10 SCC 572, (ii) Chairman, Ganga Yamuna Gramin Bank & Others Vs. Devi Sahay reported in (2009) 11 SCC 266, (iii) Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Ors. Vs. Ajai Kumar Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:6932 ) 5 Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612 Learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed the short arguments on behalf of the petitioner-Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank and has enclosed the above judgments and also the Regulations of Jharkhand Gramin Bank. It is lastly submitted that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner is wrongly recorded as submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bank and hence, the order dated 09.01.2024 passed in the W.P.(S) No.3209 of 2017 may be modified by this Court and this Civil Review Petition may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent (writ petitioner) has opposed the prayer of the petitioner Bank. It is submitted that Order dated 09.01.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3209 of 2017 by this Court may not be reviewed. It is submitted that the stand of the Bank has been considered in the 09.01.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3209 of 2017 passed by this Court. It is submitted that the Bank has made recovery of Rs.25,630/- vide letter dated 30.11.2016 asking the respondent (i.e. the writ petitioner) to deposit Rs.25,630/-, on the date of his superannuation without holding any departmental Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:6932 ) 6 proceeding or any proceeding as per regulation of the Bank, however, a sum of Rs. Rs.4,800/- was refunded to him subsequently. 7. Perused the records of this case and considered the submission of both sides and the order dated 09.01.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3209 of 2017 by this Court. 8. It transpires that the above order dated 09.01.2024 was passed in W.P.(S) No. 3209 of 2017 in the open Court in presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank. 9. Operative portion of the order dated 09.01.2024 passed in the W.P.(S) No.3209 of 2017 by this Court, at Para 7 to Para 11, read as follows:- “Para 7:- It is specific case of the petitioner that it was the duty and the work of the Regional Manager of the Bank to file the Income Tax Return, which has been submitted by the Branch Manager of different Branches of Banks. On the other hand, although the Bank has filed its counter affidavit, but there is no averment that as to when the petitioner has submitted the Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2007-08, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively and when the Regional Manager has filed the returns at that point of time. Para 8:- Thus, the stand taken by the respondent- Bank is cryptic and not sustainable. Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:6932 ) 7 Para 9:- It further appears that although the Income Tax Department while issuing Annexure-B, which has been enclosed in the counter affidavit, has requested the Jharkhand Gramin Bank to resolve the demand outstanding either by way of filing correction quarterly statement or by way of making payment of the outstanding demand and therefore, it is clear that the matter can be pursued even after superannuation of the petitioner by the concerned authorities of the Jharkhand Gramin Bank by taking necessary steps and by rectifying the returns filed by the petitioner before the then, Regional Manager of the Gramin Bank of Bharno Branch, Piska More Branch, Ranchi and Giridih Branch. Para 10:- It further transpires that even if alleged laches took place on behalf of the petitioner, it also relates to more than four (04) years ago on the date of filing of the return and no action was taken in the meantime by the Bank. Para 11:- It further transpires that no prior intimation was given to the petitioner prior to October, 2016 and when for the first time, he was informed about the loss caused to the Bank to the extent of Rs.25,630/- for the year 2007-08 of Rs. 7,600/- 2011- 12 of Rs.1,690/-, 2012-13 and 2013-14 of Rs. 16,340/-, however, later on the Bank has rectified the same and has refunded the amount of Rs.4,800/- by way of correcting the mistake.” 10. Although the petitioner Bank has filed this Civil Review petition and has enclosed a series of voluminous documents with it including the copy of the writ petition and counter affidavit filed in the said Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:6932 ) 8 W.P.(S) No.3209 of 2017, but this Court finds that the same is irrelevant for the present and the Bank is trying to make out a new case with regard to the stand taken earlier in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Bank in the said W.P.(S) No.3209 of 2017. 11. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to Regulation 39 and 39(1)(a)(iv) of Jharkhand Gramin Bank, 2010, which read as follows:- “Regulation 39.:- Penalties-Without prejudice to the foregoing regulations of this Chapter, an officer or employee who commits a breach of these regulations or who displays negligence, inefficiency or indolence or who commits acts detrimental to the interests of the Bank or in conflict with its instructions, or who commits a breach of discipline or is guilty of any other acts of misconduct, shall be liable for any one or more penalties as follows, namely,- 1.Officers: (a) Minor Penalties: (i) Censure; (ii) Withholding or stoppage of increments of pay without cumulative effect; (iii) Withholding of promotion; (iv) Recovery from emoluments or such other amounts as may be due to him, of the whole or part or any pecuniary loss Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:6932 ) 9 caused to the Bank by negligence or breach of orders; (v) Reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay for a period not exceeding two years without cumulative effect. 12. 12. At this stage, it is further relevant to quote proviso to Regulation 39, which reads as follows:- “Provided that no minor penalties as specified in items (i) to (v) of clause (a) of sub- regulation (1) of regulation 39, shall be imposed by the Competent Authority unless the officer is given a notice in writing,- (i.) Informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to impose the said penalties; (ii.) Giving him a reasonable opportunity for making a statement of defence in writing within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice and statement of defence, if any, submitted by the Officer shall be taken into consideration and of being heard. 13. Admittedly, the writ petitioner was an officer as he was posted as Senior Manager of the Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank at Hazaribagh Branch. The writ petitioner-Respondent had taken the plea Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:6932 ) 10 that on the date of his superannuation on 30.11.2016 the Respondent Bank had issued letter dated 30.11.2016 (Annexure-7) that the Regional Manager had released the retirement benefits of the writ petitioner (i.e. the Respondent in the civil review) vide letter dated 30.11.2016 by granting him Rs.17,35,249.90/- and has transferred Rs.10,29,144/-in his Bank Account on 30.11.2016, however, by the said order, the Regional Manager has deducted Rs.7,600/- + Rs. 1,690/- + Rs.16,340/- (Rs. 25,630/- in total) from his retirement benefits towards Notice from Income Tax for the period 2007-08, relating to Bharno Branch, 2010-11 related to Piska More Branch and 2012-13 and 2013-14 related to Giridih Branch. 14. As per Regulation 39(1)(a)(iv) of the Jharkhand Gramin Bank Regulations, 2010 mentioned herein above, any recovery from the emolument of the officer would constitute minor penalty. However, from proviso to Regulation 39 of Jharkhand Gramin Bank Regulation, 2010, it is evident that no minor penalty as specified in Item No.s (i) to (v) of Clause (a) of Sub-Regulation No.1 of Regulation 39 shall be imposed by the competent authority unless the officer is given notice in writing. Further, Clause (i) of the Proviso prescribes the Bank to inform the employee of the grounds on which it is Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:6932 ) 11 proposed to impose the said penalty and to give him the reasonable opportunity for making the statement of defence in writing within the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of Notice and statement of defence, if any, submitted by the officer shall be taken into consideration and of being heard. 15. Thus, it is evident that even the Bank has failed to comply with the proviso to Regulation 39 of the Jharkhand Gramin Bank Regulation, 2010. 16. Though, it was not referred in the oral order 09.01.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3209 of 2017 passed by this Court, but it is evident from Annexure- 7 of the writ petition that Rs.25,630/- has been deducted from the retiral benefits of the writ petitioner on the date of superannuation without issuing him any Notice and without giving him any opportunity of hearing and to file his defence within 15 days. 17. Therefore, it appears that Regulation 39 (a)(1)(iv) read with its proviso supports the case of the writ-petitioner, i.e. the Respondent of this Civil Review petition. 18. So far as the judgment passed in Suresh Pathrella Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce reported in (2006) 10 SCC 572 is concerned, the same is not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of this case because in the above case the delinquent employee, while working as the Chief Manager was suspended and chargesheeted for Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:6932 ) 12 misappropriating an amount of Rs.10 lakh from the customer and the punishment of dismissal was passed in violation of Regulation 3(1) of the Regulations of 1982 of Oriental Bank of Commerce. During enquiry, it was found that apart from the said case three other criminal cases were pending against the appellant- Branch Manager causing loss of Rs. 1.64 Crores, 1.77 Crores and 2.55 Crores respectively. Even during Departmental Enquiry the charges were proved against the appellant, i.e. the Chief Manager for misappropriating Rs. 10 lakh. Although, the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi had allowed the writ petition, but the Hon’ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court had set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, the judgment reported in Suresh Pathrella Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce reported in (2006) 10 SCC 572 is not applicable in this case. 19. So far as judgment passed in the case of Chairman, Ganga Yamuna Gramin Bank & Others Vs. Devi Sahay reported in (2009) 11 SCC 266 is concerned, the delinquent employee of the said Bank was charged for misconduct and chargesheet was issued to him and Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct a Departmental Enquiry but the Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:6932 ) 13 Respondent Employee did not attend the Departmental Enquiry and ex-parte enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted report holding the charges as proved. The charges were found to be very serious in nature, which has been mentioned in Paragraph 10 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, the Respondent had filed appeal before the Bank, but the plea of Second Show-cause Notice was not raised by the Respondent and even the NABARD guidelines were not referred to and his appeal was dismissed by the appellate authorities of Ganga, Yamuna Gramin Bank. Thereafter, the Respondent filed writ petition which was dismissed on 17.07.2001 and Review Petition was dismissed on 21.08.2001. Then, the Respondent had again filed another writ petition challenging the dismissal order passed by the appellate authority and which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. Later on, Review Petition was filed which was also dismissed. Then the matter went before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering the fact that Respondent did not participate in the enquiry and he had not shown as to how he was prejudiced although he was supplied with a copy of the enquiry report and he had not submitted his reply allowed Civil Appeal filed by the Bank. Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:6932 ) 14 20. So far as the Respondent (i.e. writ petitioner) in the present case is concerned, he was neither issued show-cause Notice nor any charge was framed against him nor he was held guilty and hence, the said judgment does not apply on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 21. So far as judgment in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others Versus Ajai Kumar Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612 is concerned, the same is not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. In the above judgment the scope of judicial review was discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it was a case of dismissal due to serious misconduct committed by the delinquent employee and there were Seven charges of misappropriation of funds of the Bank were committed by the delinquent employee who was working as a Cashier/Clerk in the Bank and against the said employee even a criminal case was instituted under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. read with Section 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 22. However, the learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has set aside the dismissal order on the ground that the disciplinary authority/appellate authority has passed a non- Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:6932 ) 15 speaking order and violated the principles of natural justice and which was upheld by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court on the ground that full opportunity of hearing was given to the employee as the departmental proceeding was held in compliance of the procedure prescribed under Disciplinary Rules and there was no violation of principles of natural justice and the seven charges were proved against the delinquent employee which were of grave misconduct. In the above case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that power of judicial review of the Constitutional Courts is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It has also been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, at Para 27 of the above judgment that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:6932 ) 16 However, in the present case, the respondent of the Civil Review was not given any opportunity in compliance of the rules and regulations of the Bank itself as discussed above and on the date of his superannuation, the amount of Rs. 25,630/- was recovered from his retiral benefits, which is completely illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law. 23. So far as remaining submission of the learned Senior Counsel is concerned, this Court finds that there is no apparent error in the order 09.01.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3209 of 2017 and as such this Court is not inclined to review the order 09.01.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3209 of 2017. 24. Thus, in view of the discussions made above, this Court is not inclined to review the order dated 09.01.2024 passed in the W.P.(S) No.3209 of 2017 25. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to review its Order dated 09.01.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3209 of 2017. Thus, This Civil Review Petition No. 58 of 2025 is, hereby, dismissed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Judgement on 9th January, 2026 N.A.F.R./s.m.