2025:CGHC:60198-DB JYOTI SHARMA NAFR JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.12.12 10:41:30 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 910 of 2025 Ram Avtar Verma S/o Shri Omram Verma Aged About 52 Years R/o Village And Post Champa Neora Tahsil Tilda, Distirct Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s)

versus

1. Bank Of India Through Zone Manager, Raipur Zone, First Floor G.D.

Shesh Nilayam Tatyapara Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. General Manager Bank Of India, First Floor G.D. Shesh Nilayam Tatyapara Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Branch Manager Bank Of India, Tilda Neora, Branch Raipur Zone, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Parth Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge

11.12.2025

1. The appellant/ writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 6138 of 2016 by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the writ petitioner.

2. The present writ appeal has been filed with the following prayer:-

“It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ appeal and set- aside the order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6138/2016, titled as "Ram Avtar Verma Vs. Bank of India & others" and thereby quashed the order dated 08.08.2016 and the order of punishment dated to the 15.12.2012, granting compulsory retirement appellant/petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

3. The facts of the case are that the appellant was working as Chief Cashier/CTO at the Tilda-Neora Branch of the Bank of India, Raipur, discharging his duties with honesty and diligence to the satisfaction of his superiors. It was alleged that on 25.06.2014, he received an excess amount of ₹50,000/- from a customer, Shri Rajesh Jain, who had deposited a total sum of ₹20,00,000/- in four accounts. It was further alleged that despite being aware of the excess receipt, the appellant neither returned the amount to the customer nor reported the incident to the bank authorities.

Treating the said act as serious misconduct, he was placed under suspension on 02.07.2014 and a departmental enquiry was initiated, in which he was afforded due opportunity to defend himself and adduced evidence in support of his case. However, the Disciplinary Authority, without properly considering his defence or the evidence on record, imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits, without disqualification for future employment, by order dated 15.12.2015. The said punishment was affirmed in appeal. The appellant challenged the orders before the learned Single Judge, but the writ petition was dismissed, leading to the present appeal.

4. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated

17.10.2025 and the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- “ XXX

11. It is a settled principle of law that the power of judicial review cannot be exercise to re-appreciate evidence in departmental proceedings. Evidence cannot be appreciated at the stage of any judicial review as it can be done in an appeal against a criminal proceedings. The decisions sought to be taken support being on different fact background are not applicable to the case in hand.

12. Thus looking to the seriousness of the allegations and that there was a charge that the petitioner pocketed an amount of Rs.50,000/- and the excess amount received by the petitioner was not informed to the Higher Officials, the disciplinary authority imposed the above punishment detailed above which has been affirmed by the appellate authority as well. After giving thoughtful consideration to the documents available on record, I do not find it to be a fit case to exercise the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

13. Acco