Dinesh Kumar Dharmik v. Bank of India

Chhattisgarh HC7 Apr 2026WPS/1467/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(S) No. 1467 of 2024, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 08/04/2026 (Sachin Singh Rajput, J.). Bank of India employee (Chest Officer) under suspension since 2022; charge-sheet dated 15.11.2022 and suspension order dated 19.11.2022 challenged; claim of 75% subsistence allowance versus 50% paid; petition disposed of with liberty to file representation to respondent No. 1 within 30 days, to be decided within 60 days; merits expressly untouched; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

Permission to the petitioner to make a detailed representation before respondent No. 1 within 30 days of receipt of the order; respondent No. 1 directed to decide the representation within 60 days of its receipt, in accordance with law and procedure, regarding revocation of suspension and/or payment of higher subsistence allowance. Merits not touched.

Dinesh Kumar Dharmik Vs Bank of India — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, while under suspension, is entitled to 75% subsistence allowance under the regulations governing his service conditions, instead of the 50% currently being paid. +1 more

¶¶15

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of at this stage, permitting the petitioner to make a representation before respondent No. 1 within 30 days of receipt of this order; respondent No. 1 shall decide such representation within 60 days of its receipt, in accordance with law and procedure, with regard to the petitioner's grievances concerning revocation of his suspension and/or payment of higher subsistence allowance.

¶¶19

Key takeaways

The Court expressly did not touch the merits of the case; the disposal is confined to directing consideration of the petitioner's representation.ratio¶¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), W.P.(S) No. 1467 of 2024, decided 08/04/2026 by Justice Sachin Singh Rajput: A Bank of India Chest Officer under suspension since 2022 and receiving only 50% subsistence allowance had assailed the charge-sheet dated 15.11.2022 and suspension order dated 19.11.2022, claiming entitlement to 75% subsistence allowance under the regulations governing his service conditions. Counsel restricted the present claim to liberty to file a detailed representation to respondent No. 1; the respondents' counsel did not oppose. The Court disposed of the petition without touching the merits, permitting the petitioner to make a representation within 30 days and directing respondent No. 1 to decide it within 60 days of receipt, in accordance with law and procedure, with respect to revocation of suspension and/or payment of higher subsistence allowance.

¶1

Digitally signed by ASHISH ASHISH TIWARIDate: TIWARI 2026.04.10 10:44:29 +0530

¶2

2025:CGHC:16566

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

W.P.(S) No. 1467 of 2024

¶6

Dinesh Kumar Dharmik, S/o Shri Shobharam, aged about 55 years, Occupation - Chest Officer, Bank Of India, Civic Centre Branch, Bhilai, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - Bank of India Through Its Chief Manager, Regional Office, First Floor, G.D. Shesh Nilyam, Tatyapara Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Assistant General Manager And Discipline Authority Bank Of India, First Floor, G.D. Shesh Nilyam, Tatyapara Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

--- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Shri Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondents : Shri Anand Shukla, Advocate.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board

¶14

08/04/2026

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the legality, correctness and validity of the charge-sheet dated 15.11.2022 and suspension order dated 19.11.2022 issued by the respondents. He submits that the petitioner was placed under suspension in the year 2022 and he is being paid only 50% subsistence allowances. He submits according to the regulations which governs the service condition of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to 75% of the subsistence allowance. He further submits that for the present, he is restricting his claim with regard to making a representation to the respondents authority to consider the case of the petitioenr for revocation of his suspension and / or consider the payment of 75% of the subistence allowances and with this prayer he submits that the petitioner may be

¶16

-2-

¶17

permitted to make a detailed representation with regard to grievances as projected above to respondent No.1 who may be directed to decide the case in accordance with law.

¶18

This proposition is not opposed by Shri Shukla, Advocate.

¶19

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of at this stage permitting the petitioner to make representation before respondent No. 1 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and respondent No.1, shall decide such representation filed by the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of such representation in accordance with law and procedure with regard to his grievances in respect to revocation of his suspension and / or payment higher subsistence allowance.

¶20

This Court has not touched the merits of the case.

¶21

Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶22

Ashish

Dinesh Kumar Dharmik v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Dharmik v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Fuleshwari Bai Vs Kishunram Mandawi

Ramsingh Kashyap Vs Dullu Ram Yadav

Mongrabai Yadav Vs Shyam Sundar Sharma

Arun Kumar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Munkunadas Vs Manoj Kumar

Durgesh Kumar Vs Smt. Kanti Shyam