2025:CGHC:58504-DB NAFR ROHIT KUMAR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CHANDRA Digitally signed WA No. 875 of 2025 by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Anand Kumar Jain S/o Shri Hukumchand Jain Aged About 58 Years (At Present 67 Years), Occupation Clerk-Cum-Cashier, Posted As State Bank Of India, Branch Rajhara, Civil And Revenue District Durg Chhattisgarh Presently R/o 21 Vikash Nagar, Lokholi, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus

1 - The Chairman State Bank of Mumbai Maharashtra

2 - Regional Manager State Bank of India, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3 - Disciplinary Authority and Regional Manager Zonal Office, State Bank Of India, Byron Bazaar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

4 - The Branch Manager State Bank of India, Branch Rajhara, District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate For Respondents/Bank : Mr. Harshall Chouhan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

03 . 12 .202 5

1. Heard Mr. V. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Y. S. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/ respondents on I.A. No. 01 of 2025, application for condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the instant appeal.

2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No. 01 of 2025, the same is allowed. Delay of 10 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.

4. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1)

of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant, who was petitioner in the writ petition has challenged the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.1373 of 2016 (Anand Kumar Jain and Others Vs. The Chairman, State Bank of India and Others), by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/ appellant herein has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

5. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that at the relevant time, petitioner was working on the post of Clerk-cum- Cashier under the respondents-Bank. The petitioner was charged for criminal offence punishable U/s 294, 506-B, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC on the ground that he abused and assaulted a security guard of the Bank on 19.09.1996. A criminal case was launched against petitioner and he was convicted for commission of offence punishable U/s 323 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three months. Thereafter, petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 72/2001 before the High Court, whereby conviction of the petitioner was affirmed but sentence was reduced to fine amounting Rs. 1,000/- vide judgment dated 24.12.2001. Thereafter, petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 95/2002 before the High Court which was dismissed vide judgment dated 30.08.2012. A show-cause notice was issued to petitioner by the Bank on 18.02.2003 on account of his conviction for offence punishable U/s 323 of IPC, which amounts to moral turpitude according to the provisions of Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 [hereinafter to be referred as “Act, 1949”]. The petitioner filed reply to the said notice and thereafter, respondent No. 3 vide order dated 29.04.2005, passed an order of dismissal from service.

6. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing WP/3539/2005, which was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 09.07.2013, wherein the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority with regard to moral turpitude were upheld. The petitioner preferred writ appeal i.e. WA/500/2013 assailing the order dated 9.7.2013 and the Co-ordinate Bench vide its order dated 24.07.2015 upheld the findings with regard to moral turpitude but as reasons were not assigned by the respondent No. 3 in its order dated 29.04.2005, matter was remitted back to