Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
The Rajasthan Gramin Bank (R.G.B.) vs Robin Shah on 5 March, 2026
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:10792-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 262/2025
1. The Rajasthan Gramin Bank (R.g.b.), Through Its
Chairman, Camp Office At Tulsi Tower, 9Th B Road,
Sardarpura, Jodhpur.
2. The Chief General Manager (Vigilance), (Disciplinary
Authority), Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (R.m.g.b.),
Head Office- Tulsi Tower, 9Th B Road, Sardarpura,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3. The Chairman, (The Appellate Authority), Rajasthan
Marudhara Gramin Bank (R.m.g.b.), Head Office- Tulsi
Tower, 9Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
Robin Shah S/o Shri Munna Shah, Resident Of House No. 313,
Rathkhana Colony, Near Makkad Bhawan, Bikaner, Rajasthan
(Ex-Officer Scale-I, (I.d. N. 3998), Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin
Bank, Branch- Khajuwala, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 684/2025
Robin Shah S/o Shri Munna Shah, Aged About 38 Years, R/o H.
No. 313, Rathkhana Colony, Near Makkad Bhawan, Bikaner,
Rajasthan. (Ex-Officer Scale-I, (I.d. No. 3998), Rajasthan
Marudhara Gramin Bank, Branch-Khajuwala, Bikaner,
Rajasthan).
----Appellant
Versus
1. The Rajasthan Gramin Bank (R.g.b.), Through Its
Chairman, Head Office - Tulsi Tower, 9Th B Road,
Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. The Chief General Manager (Vigilance), (Disciplinary
Authority) Rajasthan Gramin Bank (R.g.b.), Head Office -
Tulsi Tower, 9Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3. The Chairman, (Disciplinary Authority) (The Appellate
Authority) Rajasthan Gramin Bank (R.g.b.), Head Office -
Tulsi Tower, 9Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 04:04:12 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 09:46:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10792-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-262/2025]
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Bhandari.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Satya Prakash Sharma.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH Judgment 04/03/2026
1. The present Special Appeals (Writs), filed under Rule 134 A of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are directed against the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8197/2023 (Robin Shah v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank & Ors.). Vide the impugned order, while the learned Single Bench, though partly allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority, but denied the full benefit of quashing of impugned punishment order passed by the Bank and consequently denied the benefit of reinstatement to the employee herein. 1.1. Since both the instant appeals emanate from a common controversy, albeit with marginal variations in individual factual matrices, this Court deems it appropriate, for the purposes of analogous adjudication, to treat D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 262/2025 (The Rajasthan Gramin Bank (R.G.B.) & Ors. v. Shri Robin Shah) as the lead case. Accordingly, the prayer clauses, factual background, and legal submissions are being adverted to from the said appeal. The rival submissions of the parties and the (Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 04:04:12 PM) (Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 09:46:12 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:10792-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-262/2025] observations recorded in this common judgment shall, unless expressly stated otherwise, be read and understood with reference to the facts of the lead case.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed as Officer Scale-I (Junior Management Grade Scale-I) in the appellant-Bank vide appointment order dated 14.12.2013 and continued to serve the Bank. The respondent, however, was subjected to a departmental inquiry, whereupon a punishment of compulsory retirement was awarded to him on 14.11.2022, which was upheld by the appellate authority. In the charge-sheet, a total of five charges were levelled against the respondent, which included: disbursement of loan exceeding the prescribed limit; violation of certain circulars; seeking reimbursement of mobile phone charges to the tune of Rs.200/- without proper approval; misutilization of T.A. bills; and certain other discrepancies in T.A. bills.
3. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Bank submits that the inquiry against the respondent was conducted in accordance with law and the disciplinary proceedings have been taken to their logical conclusion in the form of the punishment of compulsory retirement. It is thus, submitted that the respondent-employee cannot be permitted to impugn the result of such inquiry.
3.1 Mr. Bhandari further submits that all retiral benefits, including gratuity except pension, have already been paid to the respondent.
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 04:04:12 PM) (Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 09:46:12 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:10792-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-262/2025] 3.2 Mr. Bhandari also submits that the Regulation 39(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (Officers & Employee Service Regulations), 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations, 2010) expressly provides for the major penalty of compulsory retirement, and thus, the imposition of such penalty was well within the domain of the disciplinary authority.
4. Per contra, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondent-employee, submits that the charges proved against the respondent were trivial in nature and that, having regard to the respondent's long and otherwise unblemished service record, the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to him is grossly disproportionate to the charges found proven. 4.1 Mr. Sharma further submits that the appellant-Bank has gone overboard to impose unreasonable penalty upon the respondent because the compulsory retirement would lead to an extreme condition, in which, the respondent would not receive the pension and would suffer the consequences all his life, even when he had an unblemished previous service record and was not charged with anything which could have justified the punishment of compulsory retirement.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.
6. Upon a careful consideration of the matter, this Court finds that the learned Single Bench has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the inquiry and the proceedings conducted by the disciplinary authority were in conformity with Regulation 39(1)(b) of the (Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 04:04:12 PM) (Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 09:46:12 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:10792-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-262/2025] Regulation, 2010. The learned Single Bench has also rightly placed reliance upon the precedent laws laid down by the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj v. Bank of India & Ors. [AIR 2019 SC 2075] and Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India & Ors. [(1987) 4 SCC 611] and has, upon due application of the doctrine of proportionality, held that the punishment of compulsory retirement is disproportionate to the charges alleged and proved against the respondent, and thus, while setting aside the order dated 27.06.2022 passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 14.11.2022 passed by the appellate authority, the learned Single Bench has rightly restricted the scope of remand to reconsideration of the quantum of punishment alone, which course of action is fair, just, and reasonable to both parties.
7. This Court thus, finds no reason whatsoever to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the learned Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court. Both the special appeals, one preferred by the Bank and the other by the employee, are accordingly dismissed. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 1-2 Zeeshan (Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 04:04:12 PM) (Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 09:46:12 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)