Advocates:
['PRAFULL N BHARAT', 'SANTOSH BHARAT', 'VIKASH SHRIVASTAVA', 'Keshav Dewangan', 'SUMIT VERMA', '', 'VIRENDRA VERMA', 'MALA VERMA', 'ANURADHA VERMA', 'B D GURU', 'S R J JAISWAL', 'R TRIPATHI']

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WRIT PETITION (S) NO.4981 OF 2012

J.N.Divya S/o Panchram Divya Aged About 54 Years Vill. Pendri (Sahas),

Post And P.S. Sargaon, Tahsil Pathariya, Dist. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

…Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank Through The Chairman, Head Office, 15,

Recreation Road, Choubey Colony, Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh

2. Regional Manager Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank Vyapar Viahr Road, Bilaspur,

Chhattisgarh.

3. The Disciplinary Authority, Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank Head Office, 15

Recreation Road Choubey Colony Raipur, Chhattisgarh

… Respondent(s)

For Petitioner

:

Shri Prafull Bharat, Advocate.

For Respondents

:

Shri B.D. Guru, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

Order on Board

26.10.2018

1.

Challenge in this petition is to the order of punishment dated 01.09.2011

passed by the Administrative Officer of the respondent Bank terminating the

services of the petitioner. Challenge is also to the order dated 20.03.2012

whereby the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner has been

rejected.

2.

Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed with the

respondent Bank as Cashier-cum-Clerk and in due course of time he got

promoted on the post of Officer Scale-I. While working on the post of Officer

Scale-I, the petitioner was served with charge sheet on 06.08.1993 alleging

major misconduct of committing irregularities in releasing the loan to the

villagers under the Integrated Rural Development Programme (in short,

IRDP). Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply and the reply

being found unsatisfactory, the authorities ordered for holding departmental

enquiry. After conducting departmental enquiry, the enquiry officer

submitted a report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner

stand proved. Based on the eqnuiry report, the impugned order of

2

termination was passed and thereafter the appeal preferred also stood

rejected leading to filing of present writ petition.

3.

Challenge in this petition by the petitioner is on more than one grounds.

The foremost contention of the petitioner is that the charges levelled

against the petitioner was defective in as much as the charge sheet did not

reflect the list of witnesses and list of documents which the respondents

intended to rely upon against the petitioner. It was also the contention of the

petitioner that even the entire enquriy proceedings initiated by the

respondents is vitiated on account of utter violation of basic principles of

natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner has not been granted sufficient

opportunity to defend his case all along and the respondents particularly the

enquiry officer had been conducting himself in a predetermined manner to

implicate the petitioner in the case.

4.

It was also contended that during the course of conducting departmental

enquiry also the petitioner was not served with the documents which they

have relied upon during the course of enquiry. Even the documents which

have been relied upon by the respondent Bank were not proved before the

enquiry officer by producing original and it was only attested by producing

the photocopy of the records of the Bank. Therefore, it cannot be said that

the documents have been properly proved before the enquiry officer. He

further submits that the petitioner had moved an application for taking

defence assistance which at the first instance was rejected and which was

permitted to him only at the intervention of High Court in Writ Petition

No.1565 of 1998 decided on 23.04.1998.

5.

It was further contended that even during the course of enquiry the

petitioner had move an application for getting the document particularly the

signatures and other incriminating documents examined from a handwriting

expert which too initially was rejected by the enquiry officer, however, the

petitioner again had to appro