Chattisgarh High Court
Narend Singh Thakur vs Zila Shahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit on 29 August, 2025
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 9180 of 2025
1 - Narend Singh Thakur S/o Shri Shatruhan Singh Thakur Aged About 43 Years
R/o Adarsh Balak School High School Road, Ward No. 5, Bemetara, District
Bemetara (Chhattisgarh)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Zila Shahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit G E Road, Opposite Govt. Hospital
Durg Acting In The Premises Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Durg, District
Durg (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
Order on Board
29/08/2025 Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Manish Upadhyay, learned counsel for the Respondent
/Bank, on caveat.
Heard on I.A. No. 01/2025, an application for the grant of
ad-interim relief.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner has challenged the order dated 20-06-2025, whereby
the order of removal of the petitioner has been passed on 20-06-
2025, and the Branch Manager, Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank
Maryadit, Durg, Branch Nawagarh, is directed vide order dated
05-07-2025, to lodge an FIR against the petitioner and to inform
the Respondent. He would submit that the show cause notice
was issued to the petitioner on 26-05-2022, for the proposed
minor penalty of stoppage of two annual increments; however, the
major penalty of removal from his service has been imposed
upon the petitioner, which is not permissible under Rule 58(3) of
the "Chhattisgarh Ke Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Karmchari
Sewa (Niyajan, Nibandhan Tatha Unki Karya Sthiti) Niyam, 1982.
The impugned order of removal is passed against the said rule,
and the same is liable to be interfered with. He would also submit
that vide order dated 05-07-2025, the Bank has also directed to
lodge the FIR against the petitioner, but the order dated 20-06-
2025 itself is void ab initio, and the FIR cannot be registered
against him. He would also refer to the orders dated 04-03-2025
passed in W.P.S. No. 1572/2025, order dated 04-03-2025 passed
in W.P.S. No. 1348/2025, order dated 06-03-2025 passed in
W.P.S. No. 1513/2025, order dated 06-03-2025 passed in W.P.S.
No. 1514/2025, order dated 17-02-2025 passed in W.P.S. No.
1255/2025, order dated 20-02-2025 passed in W.P.S. No.
1333/2025order dated 05-03-2025 passed in W.P.S. No.
1606/2025 and order dated 19-02-2025 passed in W.P.S. No.
1294/2025, and submit that the facts are identical to that of the
petitioner's case in those cases in which the interim orders have
been passed by coordinate bench of this court. Therefore, the
petitioner is also entitled to similar relief. It is also submitted by
him that on 22-08-2025, when the matter was listed for hearing,
the Respondent Bank was granted time to file the reply, but in the
meantime, the FIR has been lodged by the respondent/Bank on
27-08-2025, which shows their mala fide intention and
arbitrariness. Therefore, the petitioner may be protected by an
interim order staying the effect and operation of the orders dated
20-06-2025 (Annexure P-2) and 05-07-2025 (Annexure P-3), till
the final adjudication of the petition.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Bank would
submit that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on
26-05-2022 and in reply to it, he admitted his fault and therefore,
considering the conduct of the petitioner to be the misconduct as
provided under Rule 56 (1), (7), (14) and (17) of the Rules of
1982, the Bank has decided to initiate departmental proceeding
and on 05-02-2025, charge sheet was issued to him as provided
under Rule 56(1) of the Rules of 1982. In the enquiry, the
allegations levelled against the petitioner have been found
proved, and after approval from the Bank Staff Sub-Committee,
the order dated 20-06-2025 is passed. it is also submitted that on
23-05-2025, a notice was issued to the petitioner for his
appearance in the enquiry proceeding on 26-05-2025. On that
day, in the presence of the petitioner, the enquiry with respect to
charge sheet dated 05-02-2025 was conducted and the report
dated 26-05-2025 (Annexure R-4) has been submitted by the
enquiry committee, in which irregularities have been found
proved. He would also submit that the case of the petitioner is
distinguishable to the facts of those cases in which the interim
orders have been passed by coordinate bench of this Court. In
the present case, there is a departmental enquiry, and after
providing an opportunity of hearing, the order has been passed.
in reply to the show cause notice dated 26-05-2022, the petitioner
admitted his fault, which is apparent from the document Annexure
P-1, and then the authorities have decided to proceed with a
departmental enquiry. Therefore, the benefit of similar order
cannot be granted to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the
petitioner has the alternative remedy under Section 55(2) of the
Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act,1960, but he directly
approached this Court, which is not maintainable. In the present
case, the petitioner is already removed from service, and FIR has
been registered on 27-08-2025. Therefore, the petitioner is not
entitled to interim relief.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the documents annexed with the petition and their pleadings.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
Rules of 1982, and further considering the documents Annexure
P-1, P-2 and P-3, R-2, R-3 and R-4, further considering the
contents of the documents which shows that it is not only the
show cause notice dated 26-05-2022 on which the impugned
order is passed, but in reply to show cause notice, the petitioner
admitted his guilt and then the departmental enquiry was
proposed and charge sheet was issued on 05-02-2025, enquiry
committee was constituted and in the presence of the petitioner,
enquiry was conducted which reflected from the document
Annexure R-4, further that the facts of those cases in which the
interim orders have been issued are distinguishable from the
facts of the present case, as in those cases, no departmental
enquiry was conducted, but in the present case, enquiry was
conducted, the petitioner has already been removed from service,
and then the impugned order is passed, judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2000 (10) SCC 311 "State of
Haryana v. Suman Dutta, I am not inclined to grant interim relief
to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the application for the grant of ad-interim relief
(I.A. No. 01/2025) is rejected.
List the case after 03 weeks, for further consideration.
In the meantime, the petitioner may file his rejoinder.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal )
Judge
sagrika
SAGRIKA AGRAWAL
AGRAWAL Date:
2025.09.02
11:48:44 +0530
