##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:22513

NAFR

NIRMALA

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

RAO

WPL No. 99 of 2025

1 - The Regional Manager Central Bank Of India. Regional Office, Dhanjal Complex,

Ambikapur (C.G.), Pin - 497001.

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - Shri Suren Bhoi S/o Shri Ganesh Bhoi Aged About 60 Years R/o Room No. 01,

Bhaiya Than, District Surajpur (C.G.) Pin - 497231

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner/s : Shri Anand Shukla, Advocate.

For Respondent/s : Shri C.V. Ram Shastry, Advocate

holding the brief of Shri Ravi Ranjan

Sinha, Advocate.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Judgment On Board

13.05.2026

1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

“1. That, the Hon'ble Court may be kind be

pleased to quash and set aside the impugned

order dated 14.02.2025 (ANNEXURE P/1)

passed by the Appellate Authority under the

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and the Deputy

Chief Labour Commissioner (C), Raipur (C.G.)

respectively by issuance of writ of mandamus

2

or any other writ/writs, order/orders or

direction/directions.

2. That, the Hon'ble Court may be kind be

pleased to quash and set aside the impugned

order dated 14.02.2025 (ANNEXURE P/1) and

remand back the matter to the Appellate

Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act,

1972, and the Deputy Chief Labour

Commissioner (C), Raipur (C.G.) by directing

the said authority to decide the case on its

merits.

3. That, the Hon'ble Court may be kind be

pleased to quash and set aside the impugned

order dated 10.03.2023 (ANNEXURE P/2)

passed by Controlling Authority under the

Payment of Gratuity Act & RLC (Central),

Bilaspur (C.G.) respectively by issuance of writ

of mandamus or any other writ/writs,

order/orders or direction/directions.

4. Any other relief/relief's which Hon'ble court

may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of

the instant case.”

2) The facts, in brief, are that the respondent was appointed under

the petitioner on 12.8.1991 to the post of Assistant Manager. He

was subjected to departmental proceedings and a show-cause

notice was issued to him on 15.1.2021. There were serious

allegations with regard to forgery in loan sanction and failure in

discharge of duties with integrity and honesty, in utter

contravention of Regulations 3(1) and 3(3) of the Central Bank of

India Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1976 (for short,

Regulations, 1976), thereby attracting penalties under Regulation

4 of the Regulations, 1976. After a full-fledged departmental

enquiry, the respondent was inflicted with the penalty of

3

compulsory retirement with all superannuation benefits vide order

dated 11.5.2022. Subsequently, a notice with regard to forfeiture

of gratuity was issued by the petitioner on 28.6.2022. The

respondent challenged the said order before the Controlling

Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short ‘Act,

1972’) and also sought relief of payment of the gratuity. The

petitioner herein filed its reply and thereafter, the Controlling

Authority passed an order in favour of the respondent on

10.3.2023 and directed the petitioner herein to release gratuity of

Rs.20,00,000/- to the respondent alongwith simple interest @10%

per annum from 11.5.2023 till the date of realization.

3) Against the order dated 10.3.2023, the petitioner preferred WP(L)

No.151 of 2024, which was disposed of vide order dated

21.8.2024 reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to avail the

remedy of appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner herein preferred an

appeal under Section 7(7) of the Act, 1972 before the Appellate

Authority on 21.8.2024 with a delay of 20 months and the said

appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 14.2.2025 on

account of delay alone. The petitioner has preferred this petition

against the said order.

4) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

sufficient cause was assigned by the petitioner in the memo of

appeal to condone the delay but the Appellate Authority rejected

the same. He would submit that since the penalty was inflicted

4

upon the respondent, he was n