Pankaj Kumar Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) have challenged the impugned order dated
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:21239-DB NAFR ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 307 of 2025 1 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Cum Authorized Officer Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank District-Bilaspur Maryadit, Chhattisgarh. Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, Bilaspur, versus ... Appellants 1 - Pankaj Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Tiwari Aged About 36 Years R/o House No. M/545, Vikas Nagar , Kusmunda, District- Korba Chhattisgarh. 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department of Cooperative Societies, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur , PO And Police Station Rakhi District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Registrar Cooperative Societies, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh., 4 - Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Commissioner (Revenue) Bilaspur Division Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 6 - Chairman/ Board of Directors Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) : For Appellants For Respondent No.1 :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Akash Pandey, Advocate Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap and Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocates For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Arvind Kumar Verma Chief Justice , Judge 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 08 . 05 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Akash Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants-Bank. Also heard Ms. Fouzia Mirza, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Mateen Siddiqui, Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap and Mr. Anup Majumdar, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr.Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent. 2. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellants, who were respondent Nos. 6 & 7 in WP(S) No. 3346 of 2020 (Pankaj Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) have challenged the impugned order dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ
Decision
petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein was allowed no the ground that no opportunity of hearing is afforded to the petitioner though the order of removal from service is stigmatic one and thus, the order suffers from a violation of principles of natural justice. 3. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that an advertisement was issued by the Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank') and online applications were invited from the eligible candidates for 3 recruitment on total 110 posts of i.e. Branch Manager (10 posts); Agriculture Officer (1 posts); Sub-Engineer (civil) (2 posts); Assistant Accountants (10 posts); Supervisor (30 posts); Clerk- cum-Computer Operator (31 posts); Society Manager (Bank's Cadre Employees) (25 posts) and Stenographer (01 post). The writ petitioner, along with other eligible candidates, who possess the required qualifications, submitted their online applications for consideration for appointment to the aforementioned post. Written examination was conducted by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (In short 'IBPS') and the candidates who have been shortlisted in the written examination were subsequently called for an interview conducted by the Bank. Pursuant to the written examination followed by an interview, the writ petitioner along with other eligible candidates were appointed to various posts as advertised by the Bank on and around 14.02.2015. The selected candidates, after fulfilling all the requisite formalities and after submitting all the requisite documents as mentioned in the appointment orders, given their joining on an around 16.03.2015. They were successfully serving in their respective posts and have completed approximately 9 to 11 months of service. 4. A complaint was later on filed by one Durgesh Rajput, alleging significant irregularities and illegal activities surrounding the appointment process within the Bank. According to the complaint, it was claimed that a sum of Rs. 15.00 lakhs each had been paid as bribes or undue consideration to secure employment in the 4 Bank. The Chief Executive Officer forwarded the said complaint to the Commissioner (Revenue), Bilaspur Division for conducting enquiry. The Commissioner (Revenue) constituted a committee to enquire into the said complaint and after completion of the enquiry, the Committed submitted its report to the Commissioner (Revenue), Bilaspur Division on 14.09.2015. In the said enquiry report, the enquiry officer has given a finding that the recruitment process has been done in contravention of Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Karmachari Sewa Niyojan, Nibandhan Tatha Unki Karya Sthithi Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1982') as the information for filling the vacancy has not been sent to the Employment Exchange, the live certificate of employment exchange of the selected candidates have not been taken, certain posts were filled through direct recruitment which ought to have been filled through promotion channel, the post which were to be filled through Sakh Societies were directly filled at the level of Sahakari Bank, the minimum cut-off marks were reduced by the Bank after the merit list prepared by IBPS, in the Rules, 1982 the marks for interview was fixed as 30, but the interview was taken for 100 marks, the candidate who had secured highest marks in the written examination has got less than 40% marks in the interview because of which they could not be selected, some candidates have secured more marks than last selected candidate but they have not been selected, there was order by Sub- Registrar, Cooperative Societies of temporary injunction to not to 5 fill the post even the posts were filled and the requisite documents and domicile certificate were submitted after the selection. 5. Based on the enquiry report, the Chief Executive Officer through separate orders has terminated the services of the petitioner and other selected candidates. Against the order of termination, petitioner along with other candidates have raised a dispute under Section 55 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1960'), before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society, Raipur, which was registered as Suit Case No.55/2/KB/02/2018. The Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society, Raipur dismissed the dispute as raised by petitioner along with other candidates relying on the enuiry report holding that the Rules, 1982 has not been followed. Against the order of Joint Registrar, the petitioner along with other candidates filed an appeal before the Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Tribunal, Raipur, however, the Tribunal has also dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner along with other candidates vide order impugned (Annexue P-1). 6. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner along with other candidates have filed separate writ petitions before this Court and the said batch of writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge taking WP(S) No. 3346 of 2020 as lead case vide impugned order dated 12.03.2025. Being aggrieved by the same, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellants-Bank, who were respondent Nos. 6 & 7 in the said writ petition. 7. Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the 6 appellants-Bank submitted that the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein and other similarly situated writ petitioners on the basis of three grounds i.e. firstly, Commissioner (Revenue) does not have the jurisdiction to make an enquiry in the matters relating to Co-operative Societies; secondly, violation of principles of natural justice and non-participation of petitioners and thirdly, that the order of removal is stigmatic. He further submitted that so far as jurisdiction to make an enquiry in the matters relating to Co- operative Societies by the Commissioner (Revenue) is concerned, two complaints were made by the complainant, firstly before the Chief Secretary of the State of Chhattisgarh, which was forwarded to Divisional Commissioner and secondly, before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies and both the authorities had conducted separate enquiries and submitted their enquiry reports on the same day i.e. on 14.09.2015, which are on record and both the enquiries had concluded that there is a mass illegality in the recruitment process, the results have been manipulated by the ineligible Board of the Bank in favour of their blue eyed boys and the appointment has been made in contravention of the recruitment rules. However, while deciding the matter, learned Single Judge has came to the conclusion that it is only enquiry made by the Commissioner and the enquiry made the Registrar was not taken into consideration. 8. Mr. Bharat also submitted that so far as violation of principles of 7 natural justice and non participation of the writ petitioners are concerned, learned Single Judge has failed to consider that both the enquiries were a fact finding enquiry in which it was found that large scale of illegalities have been committed in the recruitment process. Admittedly, in a fact finding enquiry, there is no scope of participation of employee. It is submitted that in the fact finding enquiry, it was found that the recruitment process was tainted with mass illegality and the mischief played was so widespread and all pervasive effecting the result therefore it is difficult to pick out the person who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of the selection therefore the only way out available to the appellants to cancel the whole selection because result of such selection cannot be relied or acted upon. The Learned Single Judge further failed to consider that present is not a case where question of misconduct on the part of employee (candidate) is to be gone into but is a case where those who conducted the selection have rendered it wholly unacceptable. The widespread pervasive illegalities committed by those who conducted the selection which may of course possibly for the benefit of those who have been selected but there may be few who deserve selection but same was difficult to separate the cases from the rest therefore the decision to cancel the entire selection cannot be faulted. The learned Single Judge further failed to consider that Rule 62(2) and Rule 60(1) of the Rules, 1982 provides that the 8 services of the probation can be dispensed with without giving any plausible reason. The Rule further prescribe that whenever the services are dispensed on the ground of misconduct enquiry is must. The learned Single Judge further failed to consider that all the petitioners were probationers therefore Rule 60(1) and Rule 62(2) of the 'Rules of 1982' are applicable and without giving any reason, services of a probationer can be dispensed. He contended that it is the admitted case of the parties that after the enquiry report individual show cause notices were issued to each of the employees, their reply was taken and they were heard, thus it cannot be contended that the writ petitioners were not heard before passing the order of cancellation of their appointment. 9. So far as the third ground that order of removal is stigmatic is concerned, it has been argued by Mr. Bharat that perusal of the order of removal dated 23.11.2025 would show that the said order was not stigmatic and it has been passed on the ground that the appointment was made in violation of Recruitment Rules and the explanation offered by the writ petitioner was not found to be satisfactory. There is not an iota of specific allegation attributing to stigma. The Learned Single Judge further failed to consider that the order dated 23.11.2015 does not makes any specific allegation against the writ petitioner, therefore, there is no question of stigma. Mr. Bharat, placing reliance judgment dated 20.02.2024 passed by this Court in WA No. 66 of 2024 (The Chief Municipal Officer Vs. Bhunesh Gandharwa & Others) submitted that as the writ 9 petitioner and other candidates were not in service since 2015, a stipulated time frame may fixed so that in the said period, fresh proceedings shall be completed for taking action against the petitioners on the basis of allegation made by following proper procedure and by giving proper opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners as directed by the learned directed by the learned Single Judge and for the said period, the reinstatement part of the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge may be stayed. 10. On the other hand, Ms. Fouzia Mirza, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.Mateen Siddiqui, appearing for respondent No.1 opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants herein, in which no interference is called for. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 12. In State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Rajit Singh, reported in (2022) 15 SCC 254, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “12. In the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. Vs. A. Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530, which was also pressed into service on 10 behalf of the appellants before the High Court, it is observed in paragraph 16 as under:- “16. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the court cannot reinstate the employee. It must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same. (Vide ECIL v. B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727], Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. S.M. School for Girls [(2002) 10 SCC 293], U.P. State Spg. Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey [(2005) 8 SCC 264] and Union of India v. Y.S. Sadhu [(2008) 12 SCC 30]).” 13. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the batch of writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners including the respondent No.1 herein was allowed by the learned Single Judge only on the ground of violation of principle of Natural Justice but while remanding back the matter to consider afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners, the learned Single Judge has directed to reinstate the services of the writ petitioners without back wages, in our considered opinion when the matter has already been remanded back for fresh consideration on the ground of violation of principle of Natural Justice, it was not justified by the learned single Judge to order for reinstatement of services of the writ petitioner though without back wages, who were not in service since 2015. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner has tried to justify the order of the learned Single Judge, but he could not 11 dispute the fact that the matter has been remanded back by the learned Single Judge on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the writ appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge so far as it relates to the direction to respondent authorities to reinstate the services of the petitioner without back wages is concerned, the same is set aside. 16. Further considering the fact that writ petitioner / respondent No.1 and other similarly situated writ petitioner, who are 29 in number, are not in service since, 2015, we direct the appellants herein/respondent Nos. 6 & 7 therein to conclude the fresh proceedings, as has been ordered by the learned Single Judge, as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra