2025:CGHC:14767 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3215 of 2024

1. Rajesh Kumar Gupta S/o Late Beni Madhao Gupta Aged About 60 Years R/o Shubham Vihar Before Om Zone, Mangla Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner versus

1. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through The Chairman Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Corporate Office Plot No. 47, Sector 24, Atal Nagar New Raipur Chhattisgarh 492018

2. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Through The General Manager Corporate Office Plot No. 47, Sector 24, Atal Nagar New Raipur Chhattisgarh 492018

3. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through The Regional Manager DSS Complex Mungeli Naka Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. K. N. Nande, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate Order on Board By Bibhu Datta Guru, J.

27/03/2025

1. The petitioner, who was posted as Branch Manager at Branch Gidha, Mungeli retired from service on 31/10/2023, seeking quashment of the communication dated 30/10/2023 (Annexure-P/1) by which the respondent No.2 without any show cause notice and charge sheet by applying Regulation 45(3)(4) of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation, 2013 (for short ‘the Regulation, 2013’) withheld his retiral dues i.e. pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondents cannot withheld the retiral dues of the petitioner stating that the departmental enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner and the same is being continued even after his retirement. He would submit that after retirement of the petitioner, the departmental enquiry cannot be initiated as there is no show cause notice or charge sheet issued to the petitioner prior to his retirement. By referring Regulation 10, learned counsel would submit that for the purpose of this regulation, disciplinary proceeding shall be deemed to be contemplated or pending against an officer or employee if he has been placed under suspension or any notice has been issued to him to show cause why disciplinary proceeding should not be instituted against him until final order are passed by the competent authority.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that from the series of documents filed by the petitioner right from Annexure P/2 to P/9, whereby the petitioner was regularly corresponded and pursuant to being afforded with due opportunity to examine the relevant documents necessary for him to file a plausible explanation to the show cause notice dated 23.06.2023 (Annexure P/2), enumerating therein large number of bank accounts in respect of maintenance of which serious irregularities at the instance of the petitioner came into light. He would further submit that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was under serious contemplation and, therefore, the allegation of the petitioner of withholding of his retiral dues despite there being no reason as such is per se misconceived. He would submit that since issuance of the letter dated 23.06.2023 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why a disciplinary proceeding should not be instituted against him, the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was in contemplation very well and as such the case stood fundamentally on a different footing as compared to what has been projected by the petitioner. He would next submit that the letter dated 30.10.2023 clearly indicated the disciplinary proceeding being still remaining in contemplation against the petitioner, which meant that the competent officials of the respondent bank were evaluating the explanation offered by the petitioner on the allegations of impropriety and doubtful integrity as communicated to him through the show cause notice on the touchstone of fairness and plausibility. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the part