DHARMENDRA CHANDRAKAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1
SIDDHANT
TAMRAKAR
Digitally signed by
SIDDHANT
TAMRAKAR
Date: 2026.09.07
14:21:59 +0530

CGHC010214002018 2026:CGHC:39011
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 4587 of 2018
 Dharmendra Chandrakar S/o Shri Awadhram Chandrakar Aged About 33
Years Samiti Prabandhak (Removed) Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Pirid,
Branch Arjunda, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. R/o Indira Nagar, Chikhli,
Post - Mohannagar, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Cooperative
Societies, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
2. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Sahakari Kendra Bank, Maryadit, G.E. Road,
Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate
For State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate
For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Abhinav Tiwari, Advocate holding the brief
of Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
03.09 .2026
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to call for the entire records of the case of
the petitioner from the possession of the
respondents.

2
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue an appropriate
writ/order/direction and quash the impugned
order dated 14.05.2018 (Annexure P/1) and order
dated 08.02.2017 (Annexure P/2) passed by the
Chhattisgarh Co-operative Tribunal.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to remand the matter back to the Tribunal
if deems fit and proper for fresh consideration on
the legal grounds and other grounds as raised for
by the petitioner in its application under Section
78(2) of the Co-operative Society Act, 1960.
10.4 Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
may also be granted to the petitioner.”
2.
Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Samiti
Prabandhak at Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Pirid, Branch Arjunda,
District Durg on 31.01.2009. His services were governed with District
Cooperative Central Bank Employees Service Rules. In the year 2010-11,
during paddy procurement, shortage of 1000.23 quintals of paddy was dug
out from Center Pirid and 1984.81 quintals of paddy from Sub-Center Kurdi.
Both the centers were under control and supervision of the petitioner. A
show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner pursuant to minutes of
meeting of the Board of Directors dated 30.11.2013, whereby he was
directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,17,715.81/- towards shortage of paddy.
3. The petitioner was placed under suspension by respondent No. 4 vide order
dated 30.11.2013, and subsequently, reply to show-cause notice was filed by
him on the same date. An article of charge was issued according to the
service rules on 11.01.2014, which was duly replied by the petitioner.
Respondent Bank appointed Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer vide
order dated 12.02.2014. The petitioner was served with notice to appear

3
before the Inquiry Officer on 12.05.2014. The Inquiry Officer completed
inquiry and submitted its report before the disciplinary authority on
23.05.2014, and subsequently, an order of termination from services was
passed by the respondent No. 4 vide order dated 12.06.2014. The petitioner
raised a dispute according to the provisions of Section 55(2) of Chhattisgarh
Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative
Societies, which was allowed vide order dated 06.11.2015. An Appeal was
preferred by respondent No. 4 before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
which was allowed vide order dated 11.05.2016. The petitioner herein
challenged said order by filing second appeal before the Chhattisgarh
Cooperative Tribunal, which was dismissed vide order dated 08.02.2017, and
subsequently, review petition was also dismissed vide order dated
14.05.2018. The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the
Cooperative Tribunal dated 08.02.2017 and 14.05.2018 in this petition.
4. Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate would contend that the procedure to conduct a
departmental enquiry against delinquent employee is prescribed under Rule
58 of Service Rules. He would submit that though petitioner was served with
article of charge, but list of witnesses was never served upon the petitioner.
He would contend that the Inquiry Officer did not examine single witness to
prove guilt of the petitioner and filed enquiry report, wherein all the
allegations were found proved. He would submit that based on such enquiry
report, the disciplinary authority inflicted a major penalty. He would submit
that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the above aspect of the matter and
dismissed the second appeal preferred by the petitioner and also dismissed
the review petition.

4
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Bank would oppose. Mr.
Tiwari would submit that the petitioner was served with an article of charge
along with relevant documents. He would submit that in a departmental
enquiry, petitioner was permitted to participate, and subsequently enquiry
report was submitted, wherein allegations were found proved. He would
submit that Inquiry Officer and disciplinary authority complied with the
procedure contemplated in Rule 58 of Service Rules. He would submit that
as the petitioner participated in the departmental enquiry, he cannot be
permitted to question the procedure followed by the Inquiry Officer. He
would submit that there is concurrent finding recorded by the disciplinary
authority and the learned Tribunal, and therefore, this petition deserves to be
dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
placed on record.
7. Rule 58 of Service Rules describes competent authority & procedure to
inflict penalty and same is reproduced herein-below :-
" . . ( )
५८ दण्डहेतुसक्षमअधिकारी एक किसीभीकर्मचारी
,
केविरुद्धसेवानियम५६मेंवर्णितकार्यों त्रुटियोंतथाकृत्यों

केलिएसेवानियम५७केअधीनसक्षमअधिकारीद्वारादण्ड
.
संबंधीकार्यवाहीकीजासकेगी कर्मचारियोंऔरउन्हेंदण्डदेने
( )
केलिएसक्षमअधिकारियोंकीश्रेणियांसेवानियम६१ छः
.
मेंदीगईहैं
( )
दो किसीकर्मचारीकोगम्भीरदुराचरणकेलिएतबतक

दण्डि तनहींकियाजावेगाजबतककि जांचहेतुअधिकृत

अधिकारीद्वारानिम्नानुसारजांचकरकेकर्मचारीकेविरुद्ध

5
-
दुराचरणकादोषसिद्धनहींकरदियाजाताः
( )
१ सक्षमअधिकारी अथवाउसके द्वारा अधिकृत
IV
अधिकारीकर्मचारीकोप्रारूप मेंगम्भीरदुराचरण

केलिएआरोपपत्रदेगाऔरसाधारणदुराचरणके
V .
लिएप्रारूप मेंआरोपपत्रदेगा आरोपपत्रमें

दुराचरणकातथाउसकेविरुद्धपरिस्थि तियोंकास्पष्ट

उल्लेखकियाजावेगाऔरउसकास्पष्टीकरणमांगा
.
जावेगा
( )
२ कर्मचारीकोउसकास्पष्टीकरणप्रस्तुतकरेहेतु
,
समय जोकि कारणबताओसूचनापत्रमेंनिर्दिष्ट
, .
होगा दियाजावेगा
( )
३ कर्मचारीकोअपनाबचावस्वयंकरनेअथवाइस

हेतुबैंककेकिसीअन्यकर्मचारीकीसहायतालेनेकी

अनुमति होगीकिन्तुकिसीबाहरीव्यक्ति कोकर्मचारी
.
केबचावहेतुपैरवीकरनेकीअनुमतिनहींहोगी
( )
४ उनप्रकरणोंकोछोड़करजिनमेंकर्मचारीउसके
,
विरुद्धलगायेगएअभियोगोंकोस्वीकारकरलेताहै

कर्मचारीकोउसकेबचावहेतुसाक्ष्यप्रस्तुतकरनेतथा
,
किसी साक्ष्यका जिसकीसाक्षीपरअभियोग

आधारितहोकाप्रति परीक्षणयाकूटपरीक्षणकरने
.
कीअनुमतिदीजावेगी
( )
५ साक्ष्यकीगवाहीकासारलिखाजावेगाऔरउसे
.
सम्बन्धि तकर्मचारीकेसमक्षपढ़ाजावेगा
( )
६ दण्डकाआदेशलिखितमेंहोगातथासक्षम
.
अधिकारीकेहस्ताक्षरसेनिर्गमितकियाजावेगा दण्ड

6

सम्बन्धीपारितआदेशकीएकप्रति सम्बंधितकर्मचारी
.
कोदीजावेगी
( )
तीन कारणबताओसूचनापत्रमेंप्रस्तावितकियेगयेदण्ड
,
सेअधिकदण्डनहींदियाजासकेगा किन्तुकमदियाजा
.”
सकताहै
8. Bare reading of above-quoted provisions would make it clear that the
disciplinary authority or the competent authority has to serve article of
charge on delinquent employee specifying the misconduct. Such an
employee shall be granted time to file reply to article of charge. The
delinquent employee in the course of the departmental enquiry can appoint a
defence assistant. Where delinquent employee denies allegations, he shall be
permitted to give evidence or opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses
examined by the prosecution or department. The list of evidence shall be
read over to the delinquent employee, subsequently enquiry report shall be
served upon such an employee, and thereafter, a show-cause notice
specifying penalty shall be issued.
9. Perusal of documents would show that though an article of charge was issued
to the petitioner, but list of witnesses was not accompanied to such show-
cause notice. Perusal of the documents would further reveal that the
department did not examine a single witness to prove the allegations made
against the petitioner. The findings were recorded by the Inquiry Officer
based on documentary evidence alone. The petitioner was also not permitted
to examine his witnesses, the authors of the documents relied upon were not
examined, and thus, the procedure contemplated under Rule 58 of Service
Rules was not followed by the respondent Bank. The Deputy Registrar

7
considered the above stated lacunas in the departmental enquiry and allowed
the dispute raised by the petitioner, but the first appellate authority reversed
the findings recorded by the learned Deputy Registrar and learned
Cooperative Tribunal maintained the findings recorded by the Registrar,
Cooperative Societies.
10. The Hon’ble Surpeme Court in the matter of State of U.P. vs. Saroj Kumar
Sinha, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 held that inquiry proceedings cannot be
conducted with a closed mind contrary to the procedure prescribed in the
rules and the rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure
not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. Relevant para
30 is reproduced herein-below :-
“30. When a department enquiry is conducted
against the government servant it cannot be
treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry
proceedings also cannot be conducted with a
closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly
unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required
to be observed to ensure not only that justice is
done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object
of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a
government servant is treated fairly in
proceedings which may culminate in imposition
of punishment including dismissal/removal from
service.”
11. In reply to show-cause notice, the petitioner had denied the allegations made
against him, and thus, there was burden upon the Inquiry Officer or the
disciplinary authority to prove all allegations made against the petitioner by
leading cogent evidence. As no witness was examined, the entire

8
departmental enquiry got vitiated.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State Bank of India vs.
Samarendra Kishore Endow reported in (1994) 2 SCC 537 in para 10 held
as under :-
“10. On the question of punishment, learned
counsel for the respondent submitted that the
punishment awarded is excessive and that lesser
punishment would meet the ends of justice. It
may be noticed that the imposition of appropriate
punishment is within the discretion and judgment
of the disciplinary authority. It may be open to the
appellate authority to interfere with it but not to
the High Court or to the Administrative Tribunal
for the reason that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal
is similar to the powers of the High Court under
Article 226. The power under Article 226 is one
of judicial review. It "is not an appeal from a
decision, but a review of the manner in which the
decision was made." (Per Lord Brightman in
Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v.
Evans 1982(3) All E.R. 141 and H.B. Gandhi,
Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing
Authority v. M/s. Gopinath & Sons 1992 Supp.
(2) S.C.C. 312. In other words the power of
judicial review is meant "to ensure that the
individual receives fair treatment and not to
ensure that the authority, after according fair
treatment, reaches on a matter which it is
authorised by law to decide for itself, a
conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the
Court". (Per Lord Marylebone in Chief Constable
v. Evans). In fact is service matters, it was held

9
by this Court as far back as 1963 in State of A. P.
v. S. Sree Rama Rao,(1964) 2 LLJ 150 that:
The High Court is not constituted under
Article 226 of the Constitution a court of
appeal over the decision of the authorities
holding a departmental enquiry against a
public servant; it is concerned to determine
whether the inquiry is held by an authority
competent in that behalf, and whether the
rules of natural justice are not violated.
Where there is some evidence, which the
authority entrusted with the duty to hold
the inquiry has accepted and which
evidence may reasonably support the
conclusion that the delinquent officer is
guilty of the charge, it is not the function of
the High Court in a petition for a writ
under Article 226 to review the evidence
and to arrive at an independent finding on
the evidence. The High Court may
undoubtedly interfere where the
departmental authorities have held the
proceedings against the delinquent in a
manner inconsistent with the rules of
natural justice or in violation of the
statutory rules prescribing the mode of
enquiry or where the authorities have
disabled themselves from reaching a fair
decision by some considerations
extraneous to the evidence and the merits
of the case or by allowing themselves to be
influenced by irrelevant considerations or
where the conclusion on the very face of it

10
is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that
no reasonable person could ever have
arrived at that conclusion, or on similar
grounds. But the departmental authorities
are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly
held, the sole judges of facts and if there be
some legal evidence on which the findings
can be based the adequacy or reliability of
that evidence is not a matter which can be
permitted to be canvassed before the High
Court in a proceeding...under Article 226
of the Constitution.”
13. Having considered the facts and law discussed-above, the orders passed by
the Cooperative Tribunal are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are
hereby quashed and the order passed by the Deputy Registrar dated
06.11.2015 is hereby restored.
14. In result, this petition is hereby allowed .
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
$iddhant