IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI WRIT PETITION No. 28612 of 2022 SANJAY BANSAL Versus MADHYA PRADESH GRAMIN BANK THR. AND OTHERS Appearance:

Mr. Chetan Kanungo - Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. D. S. Chauhan – Advocate for respondents no.1 & 2.

ORDER

Reserved on : 22.04.2026 Delivered on : 04.05.2026

ORDER

The petitioner has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 30.11.2016 (Annexure P/11), whereby the punishment of compulsory retirement has been inflicted upon him on account of misconduct found proved in the departmental inquiry. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 13.09.2022, whereby his appeal against the punishment order was dismissed. The petitioner further prays for a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits.

2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner, at the relevant time, was holding the post of Scale-II Officer in the respondent bank and was posted as Branch Manager at Morar Branch, Gwalior. Certain irregularities in the matter of sanctioning and disbursement of loans were noticed in the preliminary investigation conducted by a team of three officers of the bank. Based upon the report, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 27.05.2015, wherein as many as

14 charges were levelled against him.

3. In order to conduct the departmental inquiry, one Mr. S.L. Khandelwal, Scale-

III Officer, was appointed as the Inquiry Officer and Mr. Deepak Joshi, Scale-I Officer, was appointed as the Presenting Officer. The inquiry was conducted, and after inviting written briefs from the Presenting Officer and the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority.

4. The Disciplinary Authority, in turn, forwarded the inquiry report to the petitioner vide letter dated 15.09.2016 and asked him to submit his explanation to the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.09.2016, and thereafter the impugned punishment order came to be passed on 13.11.2016. The Disciplinary Authority awarded separate punishments for each charge and, cumulatively, imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service on the petitioner.

5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a departmental appeal challenging the punishment order. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 20.02.2017. The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. No.3215 of 2017. Vide order dated 29.07.2022, this Court found that the order passed by the Appellate Authority was cryptic and non-speaking. Accordingly, setting aside the order, the matter was remitted to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration and passing of a speaking order. The impugned order dated 13.09.2022 was thereafter passed by the Appellate Authority affirming the punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The order of punishment passed by Disciplinary Authority and the appellate order are under challenge in this petition.

Submissions of petitioner’s counsel:

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the punishment orders on the ground of mala fides on the part of one Mr. K.U. Parate, a Scale IV Officer of the Bank, who was then working as Regional Manager at the Regional Office, Gwalior. The counsel argued that on 11.07.2014, Mr. Parate called the petitioner to his residence and asked for illegal demand/gratification. However, when the petitioner did not accept such demand, Mr. Parate abused the petitioner and threatened him, stating that if he does not obey his instructions, he would implicate him in a departmental inquiry. As per his submission, Mr. Parate was later transferred and posted at the Head Office as Audit In-charge.

7. The learned counsel further submitted that Mr. Parate conducted an unscheduled inspection/audit of Morar Branch in December' 2014 along with one Mr. Neeraj Saxena and Mr. K.K. Shrivastava. As per his su