Punishment order failing to specify reduction period or increment status as per regulations is statutory non-compliance and unsustainable.

The deceased employee, Gopal Prasad Jaiswal, served as a Branch Manager and was suspended on 17.04.2010 pending inquiry.

He remained under suspension for four years and seven months.

A charge-sheet was issued eleven months post-suspension alleging financial irregularities and receipt of illegal gratification.

Following an inquiry where charges were partially proved, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) imposed a major penalty on 14.10.2014, reducing his pay to the minimum and stopping increments until retirement.

The Appellate Authority affirmed this on 15.04.2015.

Notably, no specific order was passed regarding the treatment of the suspension period under Regulation 48.

The employee retired in 2020 and passed away during the litigation.

The Single Judge quashed the punishment and suspension orders on 11.12.2025.

The Bank filed this intra-court appeal challenging that decision.

1. Whether the punishment order was vitiated by illegality for failing to specify the duration of pay reduction and for combining penalties under Regulation 39.

2. Whether the non-decision on the treatment of the suspension period violated Regulation 48(2).

3. Whether the writ petition was barred by the principle of *res judicata* due to a previous litigation.

The court primarily applied Regulation 39(1)(b)(i) of the Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulations, 2010, which mandates that reduction in pay must be for a "specified period" and must clarify the impact on future increments.

It further relied on Regulation 48(2), which requires a Competent Authority to pass a reasoned order regarding the treatment of a suspension period if the employee is not dismissed.

Regarding judicial review, the court referenced *Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015)* for the principle that suspension cannot be indefinitely extended without a reasoned order.

For procedural bars, it considered the doctrine of constructive *res judicata* under the CPC as applied to writ proceedings.

The Division Bench observed that Regulation 39(1)(b)(i) contains a mandatory requirement to specify the duration of the pay reduction.

The appellants failed to do so and further overstepped by imposing "stoppage of increments till retirement," a penalty not authorized by the Regulations, effectively creating an "impermissible merger" of major and minor penalties.

Regarding the suspension period, the court found that since the employee was not terminated, Regulation 48(2) obligated the Bank to pass a reasoned order on whether the period was "spent on duty"; the Bank’s summary rejection of the representation was arbitrary.

Finally, the court rejected the *res judicata* plea because the previous writ petition (WPS No. 3679 of 2015) resulted only in a direction to decide a representation and did not constitute an adjudication on the merits of the punishment.

The Division Bench dismissed the Bank’s appeal and affirmed the Single Judge's order quashing the penalty order dated 14.10.2014 and the appellate order dated 15.04.2015.

The Bank was directed to extend all consequential service and monetary benefits, including full pay for the suspension period, to the legal heirs of the deceased employee within 60 days.