Chattisgarh High Court
Jagmohan Singh Rathiya vs Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank on 9 January, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2025:CGHC:1538
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 5074 of 2020
Jagmohan Singh Rathiya, S/o. Late Ganda Ram Rathiya, aged about 61
years, Residence of Post Chandrashekarpur, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner
versus
1 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Through : Chairman, Head Office
Mahadev Ghat, Sundar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - General Manager (Administration), Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank,
Head Office Mahadev Ghat, Sundar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. K.N. Nande, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order On Board
09/01/2025
1. Petitioner by this petition has questioned the legality and sustainability of the order dated 19.06.2019 (Annexure P-1), passed by Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 08.05.2020 (Annexure P-2) stated to be Digitally signed by passed by Appellate Authority.
BALRAM PRASADDEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.14 10:59:33 +0530 2
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner while holding the post of Branch Manager at Dharamjaigarh in Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, disbursed loan under Mudra Rin Yojana to about 217 beneficiaries. Respondents presuming that some irregularities has been committed while disbursement of loan under Mudra Rin Yojana, show cause notice was issued to him making certain allegation. Show cause notice was replied by petitioner giving all the details, however, dissatisfied with the reply to the show cause notice, petitioner was served with charge-memo levelling six charges against him. Petitioner was subjected to departmental enquiry based on the charge memo issued against him and he participated in the departmental enquiry proceeding. After conclusion of departmental enquiry proceedings, Enquiry Officer submitted its report and thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order (Annexure P-1) terminating the services of petitioner without disqualification for future employment. Aggrieved with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, petitioner submitted an appeal under the Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Services Regulation, 2013 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulation, 2013'). The appeal was submitted before the Chairman, however, the Appellate Authority has not considered the appeal and from Annexure P-2 it is reflecting that it was considered by the Board. Consideration of an appeal by the Board is in violation of Regulation 50 of the Regulation, 2013. He also contended that even the order is not signed by the members of the Board as prescribed under Section 9 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1976'). He submits that though the other grounds have also been raised in the writ petition challenging the orders impugned, 3 however, in absence of non-consideration of appeal by the Appellate Authority as provided under Regulation 50 of the Regulation, 2013 and further the order passed in appeal is not signed by the Board of the Directors as provided under the Act, 1976, the order in appeal cannot be said to be an order passed by the authorities under the Act, 1976, therefore, it is vitiated in the eyes of law.
3. Learned counsel for respondents opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that from the documents placed along with writ petition in particular Page No.42, it is appearing that the reasons have been assigned for placing the matter before the Board as after conclusion of the departmental enquiry proceedings before passing an order by the Disciplinary Authority, opinion was sought by the President of the Bank, which is higher in rank than the Chairman, therefore, to overcome with that legal situation, the appeal was placed before the Board of Directors, which is above the Chairman, therefore, there is no error in placing the appeal of petitioner before the Board of Directors, which is again an Appellate Authority under Regulation 50 of the Regulation, 2013, when the order under challenge is passed by the Chairman. He submits that the Board of Directors is the superior authority under Regulation 50, hence, submission of learned counsel for petitioner that appeal of the petitioner is not heard by the Appellate Authority is not sustainable in the facts of the case. He however submits that with respect to the second ground raised by learned counsel for petitioner that appeal is not considered by the Members of the Board, based on the arguments raised on the last date of hearing and the observation made by this Court, he has called for the original records as also Mr. Padum Lal 4 Shrivastava, Law Officer is present along with original records. He submits that after going through the records, it is appearing that though the appeal of petitioner was considered by the Board of Directors along with other agenda, however, minutes of the meeting of the Board does not bear the signature of the Board of Directors. He however, submits that in the record presence of the Members of Board of Directors is marked, which also does not bear the signature of the members of the Board.
4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record.
5. So far as the grounds raised by learned counsel for petitioner with respect to the consideration of his appeal by Board of Directors is concerned, perusal of Page no.43 of writ petition would show that three members including the President, Chief Vigilance Officer and the General Manager (Administration) has considered the appeal and President of the Bank observing that as being the appointing authority and he was consulted before the order of punishment, therefore, the appeal is to be placed before the Board of Directors.
6. Regulation 50 of the Regulation, 2013 provides for Appellate Authority, which reads as under :-
"50. Appellate authority. - An appeal shall lie before, -
(i) The Board, where the Chairman is the Competent Authority;
(ii) The Chairman, where the General Manager is Competent Authority; and 5
(iii) "The General Manager, where the Competent Authority is decided by the Board under sub-clause (iii) of clause (g) of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 2"."
7. Under Regulation 50 (ii) of the Regulation, 2013, the Appellate Authority is mentioned as the Chairman, where the General Manager is competent authority to pass an order. Admittedly, in the case at hand, petitioner being the Class-II Officer, General Manager is the competent authority/Disciplinary Authority to pass order of punishment and it is the General Manager who has passed the order of punishment against petitioner vide Annexure P-1.
8. In view of the specific provision under Regulation, 2013 of Appellate Authority, it is the Chairman, who has to consider the appeal submitted by petitioner. In Page No.42 and 43 of writ petition no reason has been assigned as to why appeal is to be submitted/placed before the Board of Director except the fact that President of the Bank being appointing authority. Regulation 50 does not mention the President to be the Appellate Authority in the facts of the case where the order is passed by the General Manager.
9. In the aforementioned facts of the case in the opinion of this Court, appeal submitted by petitioner before the Chairman against the order of punishment is to be heard by Appellate Authority as prescribed under the Regulation 50 of Regulation, 2013.
10. Even if the submission of learned counsel for respondents is to be accepted that in view of the decision taken by the President and the two other members to place the matter before the Board of Directors, perusal of the proceeding, in the appeal as also the documents placed 6 along with covering memo by respondents-Bank does not reflect that on the date of considering the memo of appeal and the decision taken is signed by all the Boards of Directors as envisaged under Section 9 of the Act, 1976. Section 9 of the Act, 1976 is extracted below for ready reference :
"9. Board of directors.-(1) The Board of directors shall consist of the Chairman appointed under sub-section (1) of section 11, and the following other members, namely:-
(a) not more than three directors, to be nominated by the Central Government;
(b) not more than two directors, to be nominated by the concerned State Government; and
(c) not more than three directors, to be nominated by the Sponsor Bank.
(2) The Central Government may increase the number of members of the Board; so, however, that the number of directors does not exceed fifteen in the aggregate and also prescribe the manner in 'which the additional number may be filled in."
11. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the order Annexure P-2 or the minutes of the meeting dated 08.05.2020 as produced by respondent bank along with covering memo so far as it relates to the petitioner cannot be said to be sustainable in the eyes of law being passed by the duly constituted Board, hence, also it is not sustainable. In view of above the decision taken in the minutes of the meeting dated 08.05.2020 in Agenda No.26 is not sustainable accordingly it is set- aside.
7
12. As this Court has observed that appeal is to be heard by the Appellate Authority as provided under Regulation 50 of the Regulation, 2013, respondents are directed to consider the appeal strictly in accordance with the provisions as prescribed under Section 50 of the Regulation, 2013. Let the decision in appeal shall be taken by respondents within period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram