IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI

th

ON THE 18 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 1667 of 2012 SHAILENDRA KUMAR GAUR Versus BANK OF BARODA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Pranay Choubey - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Anoop Nair Senior Advocate assisted with Ms. Aparna Sthapak appeared for respondent.

ORDER This petition has been filed while praying for the following reliefs:

"(i) Quash the charge sheet (Annexure-P/2), issued by respondent.

(ii) Struck down the perverse findings of E.O.

(Annexure-P/8), based on extraneous consideration.

(iii) Quash the penalty order of dismissal from service (Annexure-P/10), issued by respondent.

(iv) Quash the order of partly allowing appeal by compulsory retiring the petitioner (Annexure-P/12), without considering even an iota of documents &

defence placed by the petitioner.

(v) Direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits including back wages forthwith.

(vi) Award the cost of instant litigation;

(vii) and any other relief may also be given which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. The facts as detailed in the body of the petition reveal that the petitioner who was employed as an Officer, Freeganj Branch Ujjain with the respondent/Bank, was issued a charge-sheet on an allegation that he had produced fake House Allowance/Travel Allowance bills towards his visit to Indore. The charge-sheet ultimately ensued in submission of an inquiry report and later on, the penalty of dismissal was imposed against the petitioner which was assailed by him before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority reduced the punishment and substituted the same with the penalty of compulsory retirement. Thus, the order passed by the Appellate Authority is under challenge.

3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that it is a case where order impugned has been passed in complete ignorance of the fact that there was no occasion at all with the present petitioner to produce any fake bill to claim HA/TA. Annexure P/1 i.e. the circular issued by the Bank has been brought on record which makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner was entitled for HA/TA as per the norms and even production of a physical bill was not at all important in the case. It is contended by the counsel that merely upon a declaration, the petitioner in the capacity of being a Scale-I Officer, could have claimed the said amount. Unfortunately, this aspect was ignored by the original as well as the Appellate Authority. It is the further contention of the counsel that in the case in hand there is flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice which is evident from the inquiry proceedings. The counsel while taking this Court to page No.43 as well as 44 of the writ petition which consists of the day to day proceedings of inquiry, submits that the petitioner was not permitted to examine Mr. Lokesh Karole who sent the communication to the Bank stating that the bill in respect of Hotel Bhagwati Palace issued to the petitioner on the request made by the petitioner himself of excess amount. The note-sheet further reflects that the petitioner was not even permitted to examine Mr. Lokesh Karole by the Inquiry Officer and therefore, serious prejudice was caused to the petitioner on account of non-examination of the aforesaid important witness. Only one witness i.e Mr.S.K. Wadhwani has been examined by the respondents/Bank.

4. It is further contended by the counsel that the charge with regard to New Gaurav Hotel was baseless, inasmuch as, the entire allegations are based on MExhibit-19 which is a communication sent by one Mr. S.K. Wadhwani. Mr. S.K. Wadhwani claimed that he himself visited both the properties and he could not locate New Gaurav Hotel at the given address and so far as the other hotel was concerned, bill towards excess payment was issued to the petitioner at his own request b