7462 GI/2025

(7019)

रजजस्ट्री सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजधकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजहक

WEEKLY

सं. 45]

नई ददल् ली, नवम् बर 16—नवम् बर 22, 2025, िजनवार/कार्ततक 25—अग्रहायण 1, 1947

No. 45]

NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 16—NOVEMBER 22, 2025, SATURDAY/KARTIKA 25––AGRAHAYANA 1, 1947

इस भाग में जभन् न ृृ्‍ सं्‍ या दी जाती हज जजससे दक यह ृृथक संकलन के प ृ में रखा जा सके

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II—खण् ड 3—उृ-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा जारी दकए गए सांजवजधक आदेि और अजधसूचनाएं

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवत्त मंत्रालय

(जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग)

नई ददल्ली, 24 जुलाई, 2025

का.आ. 1981.—भारतीय ररजवव बैंक अजधजनयम, 1934 (1934 का 2) की धारा 8 की उृधारा (1) के

खण्ड (घ) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री अजय से के स्ट्थान ृर सुश्री अनुराधा

ाकुर (सजचव, भारत सरकार, जवत्त मंत्रालय, आर्तथक कायव जवभाग) को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेिों तक,

भारतीय ररजवव बैंक के केन्रीय बोडव में जनदेिक जनयुि करती हज।

[ई फा. सं. 6/2/2022-बीओ-I (भाग-1)]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-24112025-267921

CG-DL-W-24112025-267921

7020

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 22, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2025

S.O. 1981.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Reserve

Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934), the Central Government hereby nominates Ms. Anuradha Thakur (Secretary,

Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs) as Director on the Central Board of

Reserve Bank of India, with immediate effect and until further orders, vice Shri Ajay Seth.

[eF. No. 6/2/2022-BO-I-Part(1)]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 24 जुलाई, 2025

का.आ. 1982.—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अजवन और अंतरण) अजधजनयम, 1970 की धारा 9 की

उृधारा (3) के खंड (ख) द्वारा प्रदत् त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतदद्वारा, श्री एम. ृी. तजन्गराला के

स्ट्थान ृर श्री आिीष माधवराव मोरे (संयुि सजचव, भारत सरकार, जवत्त मंत्रालय, जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग) को तत्काल

प्रभाव से और अगले आदेिों तक, बैंक आफ बड़़ौदा के बोडव में जनदेिक नाजमत करती हज।

[ई फा. सं. 6/2(i)/2022-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2025

S.O. 1982.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the Central Government hereby nominates

Shri Ashish Madhaorao More (Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial

Services) as Director on the Board of Bank of Baroda, with immediate effect and until further orders, vice

Shri M. P. Tangirala.

[eF. No. 6/2(i)/2022-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 24 जुलाई, 2025

का.आ. 1983.—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अजवन और अंतरण) अजधजनयम, 1970 की धारा 9 की

उृधारा (3) के खंड (ख) द्वारा प्रदत् त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतदद्वारा, श्री हार्ददक मुकेि से के

स्ट्थान ृर श्री बलदेव ृुप षाथव (संयुि सजचव, भारत सरकार, जवत्त मंत्रालय, आर्तथक कायव जवभाग) को तत्काल प्रभाव से

और अगले आदेिों तक, सेन्रल बैंक आफ इंजडया के बोडव में जनदेिक नाजमत करती हज।

[ई फा. सं. 6/2(ii)/2022-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2025

S.O. 1983.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the Central Government hereby nominates Shri

Baldeo Purushartha (Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs) as

Director on the Board of Central Bank of India, with immediate effect and until further orders, vice Shri Hardik

Mukesh Sheth.

[eF. No. 6/2(ii)/2022-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : नवम् बर 22, 2025/अग्रहायण 1, 1947

7021

नई ददल्ली, 24 जुलाई, 2025

का.आ. 1984.—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अजवन और अंतरण) अजधजनयम, 1970 की धारा 9 की

उृधारा (3) के खंड (ख) द्वारा प्रदत् त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतदद्वारा, श्री ृंकज िमाव के स्ट्थान ृर

श्री डी. आनंदन (अृर सजचव, भारत सरकार, जवत्त मंत्रालय, व्यय जवभाग) को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेिों तक,

ृंजाब नजिनल बैंक के बोडव में जनदेिक नाजमत करती हज।

[ई फा. सं. 6/2(iii)/2022-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2025

S.O. 1984.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the Central Government hereby nominates

Shri D. Anandan (Additional Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure) as

Director on the Board of Punjab National Bank, with immediate effect and until further orders, vice

Shri Pankaj Sharma.

[eF. No. 6/2(iii)/2022-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 24 जुलाई, 2025

का.आ. 1985.—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अजवन और अंतरण) अजधजनयम, 1970 की धारा 9 की

उृधारा (3) के खंड (ख) द्वारा प्रदत् त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतदद्वारा, श्री समीर िुक्ला के स्ट्थान

ृर श्री रोहन चंद ाकुर (जनदेिक, भारत सरकार, जवत्त मंत्रालय, जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग) को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले

आदेिों तक, यूजनयन बैंक आफ इंजडया के बोडव में जनदेिक नाजमत करती हज।

[ई फा. सं. 6/2(iv)/2022-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2025

S.O. 1985.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the Central Government hereby nominates

Shri Rohan Chand Thakur (Director, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services) as

Director on the Board of Union Bank of India, with immediate effect and until further orders, vice

Shri Sameer Shukla.

[eF. No. 6/2(iv)/2022-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 24 जुलाई, 2025

का.आ. 1986.—राष्ट्रीय कृजष और ग्रामीण जवकास बैंक अजधजनयम, 1981 (1981 का 61) की धारा 6 की

उृधारा (1) के खण्ड (घ) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री एम. ृी. तजन्गराला के

स्ट्थान ृर श्री आिीष माधवराव मोरे, संयुि सजचव, जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग, जवत्त मंत्रालय, नई ददल्ली को तत्काल प्रभाव

से और अगले आदेिों तक, राष्ट्रीय कृजष और ग्रामीण जवकास बैंक (नाबाडव) के जनदेिक मंडल में जनदेिक जनयुि करती हज।

[ई फा. सं. 6/2(xii)/2022-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

7022

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 22, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2025

S.O. 1986.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the National

Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981 (61 of 1981), the Central Government hereby appoints

Shri Ashish Madhaorao More, Joint Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi as a

Director on the Board of Directors of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), with

immediate effect or until further orders, vice Shri M. P. Tangirala.

[eF. No. 6/2(xii)/2022-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 24 जुलाई, 2025

का.आ. 1987.—राष्ट्रीय आवास बैंक अजधजनयम, 1987 (1987 का 53) की धारा 6 की उृधारा (1) के

खण्ड (ड.) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री समीर िुक्ला के स्ट्थान ृर श्री हार्ददक

मुकेि से , जनदेिक, जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेिों तक, राष्ट्रीय आवास बैंक के बोडव में

जनदेिक नाजमत करती हज।

[ई फा. सं. 6/2(Xiii)/2022-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2025

S.O. 1987.— In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the National

Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987), the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Hardik Mukesh Sheth,

Director, Department of Financial Services, as Director on the Board of National Housing Bank, with immediate

effect and until further orders, vice Shri Sameer Shukla.

[eF. No. 6/2(xiii)/2022-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 24 जुलाई, 2025

का.आ. 1988.—राष्ट्रीय अवसंरचना जवत्तृोषण और जवकास बैंक अजधजनयम, 2021 (2021 का 17) की धारा 6

की उृधारा (1) के खण्ड (घ) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री मनोज मुट्टजत्तल

अय्यप्ृन के स्ट्थान ृर सुश्री मानसा गंगोत्री काटा, जनदेिक, जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेिों

तक, राष्ट्रीय अवसंरचना जवत्तृोषण और जवकास बैंक के जनदेिक मंडल में जनदेिक नाजमत करती हज।

[ई फा. सं. 6/2(xiv)/2022-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2025

S.O. 1988.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the National

Bank for Financing Infrastructure and Development Act, 2021 (17 of 2021), the Central Government hereby

nominates Ms Manasa Gangotri Kata, Director, Department of Financial Services, as Director on the Board of

Directors of National Bank for Financing Infrastructure and Development, with immediate effect and until further

orders, vice Shri Manoj Muttathil Ayyappan.

[eF. No. 6/2(xiv)/2022-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 8 जसतम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 1989.—केन्रीय सरकार, राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणव उृबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970

(ददनांक 17.11.2022 के अजधसूचना द्वारा संिोजधत) की ृजरा 8(1) के साथ ृर त बैंककारी कंृनी (अजवन एवं उृक्रमों

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : नवम् बर 22, 2025/अग्रहायण 1, 1947

7023

का अंतरण) अजधजनयम,1970 की धारा 9 की उृ – धारा (3) के खंड (क) के द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए

एतद्द्वारा, श्री अजय कुमार श्रीवास्ट्तव (जन्म जतजथ : 15.10.1967), प्रबंध जनदेिक एवं मु्‍य कायवृालक अजधकारी,

इंजडयन ओवरसीज़ बैंक के कायवकाल को उनके वतवमान अजधसूजचत कायावजध जो ददनांक 31.12.2025 को समाप्त हो रही

हज, के बाद से इंजडयन ओवरसीज़ बैंक में ृूणव काजलक जनदेिक के प ृ में उनकी 10 वषव के कायवकाल ृूरा होने की जतजथ तक

अथावत् 01.01.2026 से 08.10.2027 तक या अगले आदेिों तक, जो भी ृहले हो ,बढाती हज।

[ई फा. सं. 4/3/2024-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th September, 2025

S.O. 1989.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with paragraph 8 (1) of the Nationalised

Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 (amended vide notification dated 17.11.2022), the

Central Government hereby extends the tenure of Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava (DoB: 15.10.1967), Managing Director

and Chief Executive Officer, Indian Overseas Bank, beyond his currently notified term which is ending on

31.12.2025, till the date of completion of his 10 years‘ tenure as Whole-Time Director in Indian Overseas Bank,

i.e., w.e.f. 01.01.2026 up to 08.10.2027, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 4/3/2024-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 9 जसतम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 1990.—बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अजवन और अंतरण) अजधजनयम, 1980 की धारा 9 की

उृधारा (3) के खंड (ख) द्वारा प्रदत् त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतदद्वारा, सुश्री एम. जी. जयश्री के

स्ट्थान ृर श्री जजतेन्र असाटी (जनदेिक, भारत सरकार, जवत्त मंत्रालय, जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग) को तत्काल प्रभाव से और

अगले आदेिों तक, ृंजाब एंड ससध बैंक के बोडव में जनदेिक नाजमत करती हज।

[ई फा. सं. 6/2(i)/2022-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th September, 2025

S.O. 1990.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980, the Central Government hereby nominates

Shri Jitendra Asati (Director, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services) as

Director on the Board of Punjab & Sind Bank, with immediate effect and until further orders, vice Ms M. G. Jayasree.

[eF. No. 6/2(i)/2022-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 1991.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणव उृबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 (ददनांक 17.11.2022 की अजधसूचना

के माध्यम से संिोजधत) के ृजरा 8 (1) के साथ ृर त बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अजवन और अंतरण) अजधजनयम, 1970

की धारा 9 की उृधारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री जॉयदीृ

दत्ता रॉय (जन्म जतजथिः 1.7.1972), कायवृालक जनदेिक, इजण्डयन ओवरसीज बैंक के कायवकाल की वतवमान अजधसूजचत

अवजध, जो ददनांक 20.10.2025 को समाप्त हो रही हज, से आगे तीन वषव की अवजध के जलए अथवा अगले आदेिों तक, जो

भी ृहले हो, बढाती हज।

[ई फा. सं. 4/4(i)/2024-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

7024

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 22, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025

S.O. 1991.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with paragraph 8 (1) of the Nationalised

Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 (amended vide notification dated 17.11.2022), the

Central Government hereby extends the term of office of Shri Joydeep Dutta Roy (DoB: 01.07.1972), Executive

Director, Indian Overseas Bank, for a period of three years beyond his currently notified term which is ending on

20.10.2025 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 4/4(i)/2024-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 1992.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणव उृबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 (ददनांक 17.11.2022 की अजधसूचना

की धारा 9 की उृधारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा,

श्री रामासुब्रमण्यन एस. (जन्म जतजथिः 7.6.1967), कायवृालक जनदेिक, यूजनयन बैंक आफ इंजडया के कायवकाल की वतवमान

अजधसूजचत अवजध, जो ददनांक 20.11.2025 को समाप्त हो रही हज, को उनकी अजधवर्तषता की आयु प्राप्त करने की तारीख,

अथावत 30.6.2027 तक अथवा अगले आदेिों तक, जो भी ृहले हो, आगे बढाती हज।

[ई फा. सं. 4/4(ii)/2024-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025

S.O. 1992.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with paragraph 8 (1) of the Nationalised

Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 (amended vide notification dated 17.11.2022), the

Central Government hereby extends the term of office of Shri Ramasubramanian S. (DoB: 07.06.1967), Executive

Director, Union Bank of India, beyond his currently notified term which is ending on 20.11.2025, till the date of his

superannuation, i.e., 30.06.2027 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 4/4(ii)/2024-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 1993.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणव उृबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 (ददनांक 17.11.2022 की अजधसूचना

की धारा 9 की उृधारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री सुब्रत

कुमार (जन्म जतजथिः 23.10.1970), कायवृालक जनदेिक, बैंक आफ इंजडया के कायवकाल की वतवमान अजधसूजचत अवजध,

जो ददनांक 20.11.2025 को समाप्त हो रही हज, से आगे तीन वषव की अवजध के जलए अथवा अगले आदेिों तक, जो भी

ृहले हो, बढाती हज।

[ई फा. सं. 4/4(iii)/2024-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025

S.O. 1993.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with paragraph 8 (1) of the Nationalised

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : नवम् बर 22, 2025/अग्रहायण 1, 1947

7025

Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 (amended vide notification dated 17.11.2022), the

Central Government hereby extends the term of office of Shri Subrat Kumar (DoB: 23.10.1970), Executive Director,

Bank of India, for a period of three years beyond his currently notified term which is ending on 20.11.2025 or until

further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 4/4(iii)/2024-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 1994.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणव उृबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 (ददनांक 17.11.2022 की अजधसूचना

की धारा 9 की उृधारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री राजेन्र

कुमार साबू (जन्म जतजथिः 21.4.1971), कायवृालक जनदेिक, यूको बैंक के कायवकाल की वतवमान अजधसूजचत अवजध, जो

ददनांक 20.11.2025 को समाप्त हो रही हज, से आगे तीन वषव की अवजध के जलए अथवा अगले आदेिों तक, जो भी ृहले

हो, बढाती हज।

[ई फा. सं. 4/4(iv)/2024-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025

S.O. 1994.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with paragraph 8 (1) of the Nationalised

Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 (amended vide notification dated 17.11.2022), the

Central Government hereby extends the term of office of Shri Rajendra Kumar Saboo (DoB: 21.04.1971), Executive

Director, UCO Bank, for a period of three years beyond his currently notified term which is ending on 20.11.2025 or

until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 4/4(iv)/2024-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 1995.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणव उृबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 (ददनांक 17.11.2022 की अजधसूचना

की धारा 9 की उृधारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री लजलत

त्यागी (जन्म जतजथिः 14.6.1971), कायवृालक जनदेिक, बैंक आफ बड़़ौदा के कायवकाल की वतवमान अजधसूजचत अवजध, जो

हो, बढाती हज।

[ई फा. सं. 4/4(v)/2024-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025

S.O. 1995.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with paragraph 8 (1) of the Nationalised

Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 (amended vide notification dated 17.11.2022), the

Central Government hereby extends the term of office of Shri Lalit Tyagi (DoB: 14.06.1971), Executive Director,

Bank of Baroda, for a period of three years beyond his currently notified term which is ending on 20.11.2025 or until

further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 4/4(v)/2024-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

7026

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 22, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 1996.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणव उृबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 (ददनांक 17.11.2022 की अजधसूचना

श्री एम. ृरमजसवम (जन्म जतजथिः 20.3.1967), कायवृालक जनदेिक, ृंजाब नजिनल बैंक के कायवकाल की वतवमान

अजधसूजचत अवजध, जो ददनांक 30.11.2025 को समाप्त हो रही हज, को उनकी अजधवर्तषता की आयु प्राप्त करने की तारीख,

अथावत 31.3.2027 तक अथवा अगले आदेिों तक, जो भी ृहले हो, आगे बढाती हज।

[ई फा. सं. 4/4(vi)/2024-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025

S.O. 1996.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with paragraph 8 (1) of the Nationalised

Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 (amended vide notification dated 17.11.2022), the

Central Government hereby extends the term of office of Shri M. Paramasivam (DoB: 20.03.1967), Executive

Director, Punjab National Bank, beyond his currently notified term which is ending on 30.11.2025, till the date of his

superannuation, i.e., 31.03.2027 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 4/4(vi)/2024-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 1997.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणव उृबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 (ददनांक 17.11.2022 की अजधसूचना

की धारा 9 की उृधारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री मल्लादी

वेंकट मुरली कृ्‍णा (जन्म जतजथिः 1.8.1967), कायवृालक जनदेिक, सेन्रल बैंक आफ इंजडया के कायवकाल की वतवमान

अथावत 31.7.2027 तक अथवा अगले आदेिों तक, जो भी ृहले हो, आगे बढाती हज।

[ई फा. सं. 4/4(vii)/2024-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025

S.O. 1997.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with paragraph 8 (1) of the Nationalised

Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 (amended vide notification dated 17.11.2022), the

Central Government hereby extends the term of office of Shri Malladi Venkat Murali Krishna (DoB: 01.08.1967),

Executive Director, Central Bank of Bank, beyond his currently notified term which is ending on 30.11.2025, till the

date of his superannuation, i.e., 31.07.2027 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 4/4(vii)/2024-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 1998.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणव उृबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 (ददनांक 17.11.2022 की अजधसूचना

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : नवम् बर 22, 2025/अग्रहायण 1, 1947

7027

की धारा 9 की उृधारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री संजय

जवनायक मुदजलयार (जन्म जतजथिः 2.7.1968), कायवृालक जनदेिक, बैंक आफ के कायवकाल की वतवमान अजधसूजचत अवजध,

जो ददनांक 31.12.2025 को समाप्त हो रही हज, को उनकी अजधवर्तषता की आयु प्राप्त करने की तारीख, अथावत 31.7.2028

तक अथवा अगले आदेिों तक, जो भी ृहले हो, आगे बढाती हज।

[ई फा. सं. 4/4(viii)/2024-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025

S.O. 1998.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with paragraph 8 (1) of the Nationalised

Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 (amended vide notification dated 17.11.2022), the

Central Government hereby extends the term of office of Shri Sanjay Vinayak Mudaliar (DoB: 02.07.1968),

Executive Director, Bank of Baroda, beyond his currently notified term which is ending on 31.12.2025, till the date of

his superannuation, i.e., 31.07.2028, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 4/4(viii)/2024-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 1999.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणव उृबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 (ददनांक 17.11.2022 की अजधसूचना

की धारा 9 की उृधारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री हरदीृ

ससह अहलूवाजलया (जन्म जतजथिः 24.6.1967), कायवृालक जनदेिक, केनरा बैंक के कायवकाल की वतवमान अजधसूजचत

अवजध, जो ददनांक 6.2.2026 को समाप्त हो रही हज, को उनकी अजधवर्तषता की आयु प्राप्त करने की तारीख, अथावत

30.6.2027 तक अथवा अगले आदेिों तक, जो भी ृहले हो, आगे बढाती हज।

[ई फा. सं. 4/4(ix)/2024-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025

S.O. 1999.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with paragraph 8 (1) of the Nationalised

Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 (amended vide notification dated 17.11.2022), the

Central Government hereby extends the term of office of Shri Hardeep Singh Ahluwalia (DoB: 24.06.1967),

Executive Director, Canara Bank, beyond his currently notified term which is ending on 06.02.2026, till the date of

his superannuation, i.e., 30.06.2027 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 4/4(ix)/2024-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 2000.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणव उृबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 (ददनांक 17.11.2022 की अजधसूचना

श्री ृी. आर. राजगोृाल (जन्म जतजथिः 14.7.1967), कायवृालक जनदेिक, बैंक आफ इंजडया के कायवकाल की वतवमान

अजधसूजचत अवजध, जो ददनांक 28.2.2026 को समाप्त हो रही हज, को उनकी अजधवर्तषता की आयु प्राप्त करने की तारीख,

अथावत 31.7.2027 तक अथवा अगले आदेिों तक, जो भी ृहले हो, आगे बढाती हज।

[ई फा. सं. 4/4(x)/2024-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

7028

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 22, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025

S.O. 2000.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with paragraph 8 (1) of the Nationalised

Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 (amended vide notification dated 17.11.2022), the

Central Government hereby extends the term of office of Shri P R Rajagopal (DoB: 14.07.1967), Executive Director,

Bank of India, beyond his currently notified term which is ending on 28.02.2026, till the date of his superannuation,

i.e., 31.07.2027 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 4/4(x)/2024-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 2001.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणव उृबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 (ददनांक 17.11.2022 की अजधसूचना

श्री जनतेि रंजन (जन्म जतजथिः 11.11.1976), कायवृालक जनदेिक, यूजनयन बैंक आफ इंजडया के कायवकाल की वतवमान

अजधसूजचत अवजध, जो ददनांक 9.3.2026 को समाप्त हो रही हज, से आगे तीन वषव की अवजध के जलए अथवा अगले आदेिों

तक, जो भी ृहले हो, बढाती हज।

[ई फा. सं. 4/4(xi)/2024-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025

S.O. 2001.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with paragraph 8 (1) of the Nationalised

Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 (amended vide notification dated 17.11.2022), the

Central Government hereby extends the term of office of Shri Nitesh Ranjan (DoB: 11.11.1976), Executive Director,

Union Bank of India, for a period of three years beyond his currently notified term which is ending on 09.03.2026, or

until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 4/4(xi)/2024-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

(व्यय जवभाग)

नई ददल्ली, 13 नवम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 2002.—केन् र सरकार, एतद्वारा राजभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयमावली,

1976 के जनयम 10 के उृ-जनयमों (2) एवं (4) के अनुसरण में, भारतीय लेखाृरीक्षा एवं लेखा जवभाग के कायावलय

प्रधान जनदेिक लेखाृरीक्षा, ृूवव तट रेलवे, भुवनेश्वर जजसमें अस्ट् सी प्रजतित से अजधक अजधकाररयों/कमवचाररयों ने सहदी का

कायवसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया हज, को अजधसूजचत करती हज।

[फा. सं. ए-12034/04/2025-ईजी]

रामेश् वर कुमार, अवर सजचव

(Department of Expenditure)

New Delhi, the 13th November, 2025

S.O. 2002.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rules (2) and (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages

(Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the office of the

Principal Director of Audit, East Cost Railway, Bhubaneswar under the Indian Audit and Accounts Department

wherein eighty per cent. of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. A-12034/04/2025-EG]

RAMESHWAR KUMAR, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : नवम् बर 22, 2025/अग्रहायण 1, 1947

7029

कोयला मंत्रालय

नई ददल्ली, 11 नवम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 2003.—केन्रीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता हज दक इससे उृाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल् लेजखत ृररक्षेत्र की

भूजम में से कोयला अजभप्राप् त दकए जाने की संभावना हज;

और उक् त अजधसूचना में व्णत क्षेत्र में अंतर्तव्‍ ट ब्य़ौरे रेखांक धारक सं्‍ या एनएलसीआईएल/ एनृीएससीृी/

सीबीए/4/1, तारीख 09 माचव, 2025 का जनरीक्षण “कायवृालक जनदेिक या कोयला समन्वय, नेवेली जलग्नाइट कॉृोरेिन

इंजडया जलजमटेड, ृंजीकृत कायावलय नबंर 135, ईवीआर ृेररयार हाई रोड, कीलृॉक, चेन्नई 600010, तजमलनाडु या

जनगजमत कायावलय, ब्लॉक-1, नेवेली 607801, कडलूर जजला, तजमलनाडु या मु्‍य महाप्रबंधक (अन्वेषण प्रभाग), केंरीय

खान योजना एवं जडज़ाइन इंस्ट्टीट्यूट जलजमटेड, गोंडवाना प्लेस, कांके रोड, रांची 834008, झारखंड या कोयला जनयंत्रक,

कोयला जनयंत्रक का संग न, कोयला मंत्रालय, कोर 2, 5वीं मंजजल, स्ट्कोृ मीनार, लक्ष्मी नगर, ददल्ली 110092 या जजला

कलेक्टर का कायावलय, अंगुल जजला, ओजडिा में दकया जा सकता हज;

अत: अब केन् रीय सरकार, कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (अजवन और जवकास) अजधजनयम, 1957 (1957 का 20) (जजसे

इसमें इसके ृश् चात् उक् त अजधजनयम कहा गया हज) की धारा 4 की उृधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत् त िजक् तयों का प्रयोग करते

हुए, उस भूजम में कोयले का ृूवेक्षण करने के अृने आिय की सूचना देती हज;

उक् त अनुसूची में उजल्लजखत भूजम में जहतबद्ध कोई व् यजक् त-

(i) उक् त अजधसूचना की धारा 4 की उृ-धारा (3) के अधीन की गई दकसी कायवाही से हुई या होने वाली संभाजवत

दकसी क्षजत के जलए अजधजनयम की धारा 6 के अधीन प्रजतकर का दावा कर सकेगा; या

(ii) उक् त अजधजनयम की धारा 13 की उृ-धारा (1) के अधीन ृूवेक्षण अनुज्ञजप् तयों के प्रभावहीन होने के संबंध में या

उक् त अजधजनयम की धारा 13 की उृ-धारा (4) के अधीन खनन ृट्टे प्रभावहीन होने के जलए प्रजतकर का दावा

कर सकेगा और उसे उक् त अजधनयम की धारा 13 की उृधारा (1) के खंड (i) से खंड (iv) में जवजनर्दद्‍ ट मदों की

बाबत उृगत व् यय को उृदर्तित करने के जलए ृूवोक् त भूजम से संबंजधत सभी मानजचत्रों, चाटों और अन् य

दस्ट् तावेजों को ृररदत् त कर सकेगा।

इस अजधसूचना के भारत के राजृत्र में प्रकािन की तारीख से 90 (नब्बे) ददनों के अंदर, कायवृालक जनदेिक/कोयला

समन्वयक, नेवेली जलग्नाइट कॉृोरेिन इंजडया जलजमटेड, ृंजीकृत कायावलय नबंर 135, ईवीआर ृेररयार हाई रोड,

कीलृॉक, चेन्नई 600010, तजमलनाडु या जनगजमत कायावलय, ब्लॉक -1, नेवेली 607801, कडलूर जजला, तजमलनाडु

को भेजें।

अनुसूची

कोयला खनन ब्लॉक का नाम: न्यू ृात्राृारा दजक्षण कोयला खान

(तहसील छेंडीृाड़ा, जजला अंगुल, राज्य ओजडिा)

[रेखांक धारक सं्‍ या एनएलसीआईएल/एनृीएससीृी//सीबीए/4/1, तारीख 9 माचव 2025]

एनएलसी इंजडया जलजमटेड

न्यू ृात्राृारा दजक्षण कोयला खान

भूजम का जववरण

क्रम.सं.

गॉव का नाम

तहसील

सं./थाना.सं.

तहसील

जजला

क्षेत्र हेक्टेयर में

(लगभग)

रटप्ृजणयााँ

बागजड़या

छेंदीृदा

अंगुल

40.285

भाग

दिरासही

छेंदीृदा

अंगुल

38.661

भाग

7030

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 22, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

कनलोई संरजक्षत वन

संरजक्षत वन

छेंदीृदा

अंगुल

27.642

भाग

देबीनगर संरजक्षत वन

संरजक्षत वन

छेंदीृदा

अंगुल

23.777

भाग

जरीृल

छेंदीृदा

अंगुल

0.261

भाग

कनलोई

छेंदीृदा

अंगुल

284.205

भाग

ृात्रृडा

छेंदीृदा

अंगुल

819.595

भाग

ृात्रृडा जंगल

छेंदीृदा

अंगुल

115.458

भाग

ृीृलबहल

छेंदीृदा

अंगुल

447.009

भाग

सृोइनाली

छेंदीृदा

अंगुल

60.829

भाग

जसमली ृाल

छेंदीृदा

अंगुल

91.322

भाग

कुल भूजम: 1949.042 हेक्टेयर (लगभग) या 4816.189 एकड़ (लगभग)

सीमा जववरण:

ए-बी-सी: लाइन बागजड़या गांव में सबदु 'ए' से िुप होती हज और सृोइनली गांव में सबदु 'बी' से ृार होकर सृोइनली गांव

में सबदु 'सी ' ृर समाप्त होती हज I

सी-डी-ई: लाइन सृोइनली गांव में सबदु 'सी ' से िुप होती हज और जसमलीृाल गांव में सबदु 'डी' से ृार होकर जसमलीृाल

गांव में सबदु 'ई' ृर समाप्त होती हज I

लाइन ए-बी-सी–डी–ई, खान की ृूवी सीमा बनाती हज।

ई-एफ-जी-एच: लाइन जसमलीृाल गांव में सबदु 'ई' से िुप होती हज और सबदु 'एफ', और सबदु 'जी' देबीनगर ृीएफ में से

ृार होकर कनलोई गांव में सबदु 'एच' ृर समाप्त होती हज।

एच-आई-जे: लाइन कनलोई गांव में सबदु 'एच' से िुप होती हज और कनलोई सरंजक्षत वन में सबदु 'आई' से ृार होकर

कनलोई सरंजक्षत वन में सबदु 'जे' ृर समाप्त होती हज।

लाइन ई एफ जी एच आई जे खान की दजक्षणी सीमा बनाती हज।

जे-के: लाइन कनलोई आरएफ में सबदु ‘जे’ से िुप होती हज और कनलोई गांव में सबदु ‘के’ ृर समाप्त होती हज।

के-एल: लाइन कनलोई गांव में सबदु `के` से िुप होती हज और ृात्रृडा जंगल गांव में सबदु `एल` ृर समाप्त होती हज।

एल-एम-एन: लाइन ृात्रृडा जंगल गांव में सबदु `एल` से िुप होकर कनलोई गांव में सबदु `एम` से ृार होती हज और

ृात्रृडा जंगल गांव में सबदु `एन` ृर समाप्त होती हज।

लाइन जे-के-एल-एम-एन खान की ृजिमी सीमा बनाती हज।

एन-ओ-ृी-क्यू: लाइन ृात्रृडा जंगल गांव में सबदु `एन` से िुप होती हज और ृात्रृडा गांव में सबदु `ओ` और ृीृलबहल

गांव में सबदु `ृी` से ृार होकर ृीृलबहल गांव में सबदु `क्यू` ृर समाप्त होती हज।

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : नवम् बर 22, 2025/अग्रहायण 1, 1947

7031

क्यू-आर-ए: लाइन ृीृलबहल गांव में सबदु `क्यू` से िुप होती हज और दिरसही गांव में सबदु आर` से ृार होकर बागजड़या

गांव में सबदु `ए` ृर समाप्त होती हज।

लाइन एन-ओ-ृी-क्यू-आर-ए खान की उत्तरी सीमा बनाती हज।

[फा. सं. 43015/10/2025–एलएआईआर]

दिवन कुमार सोलंकी, जनदेिक

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 11th November, 2025

S.O. 2003.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the land

in the locality described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

And, whereas, the plan bearing number NLCIL/NPSCP/CBA/4/1, dated the 9^th March, 2025 containing

details of the area of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the ―Executive Director/

Coal Co-ordination, NLC India Limited, Registered office No-135, EVR Periyar High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai

600010, Tamil Nadu; Corporate Office at Block-1, Neyveli 607801, Cuddalore District, Tamilnadu or at the office of

the Chief General Manager (Exploration Division), Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited, Gondwana

Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi 834008, Jharkhand or at the office of Coal Controller, Coal Controller‘s Organization,

Ministry of Coal, Scope Minar, 5^th Floor, Core- II, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092 or at the office of District Collector,

District Angul (Odisha);

Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas

(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central

Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal from land described in the said Schedule;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may –

claim compensation under section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to be caused by any

action taken under sub-section (3) of section 4 thereof; or

ii.

claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act in respect of prospecting licenses

ceasing to have effect or under sub-section (4) of section 13 of the Act for mining lease ceasing to have

effect and deliver all maps, charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid land to show the expenditure

incurred in respect of items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act,

to the office of the Executive Director/ Coal Co-ordination, NLC India Limited, Registered office No-135, EVR

Periyar High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600010, Tamil Nadu; Corporate Office at Block-1, Neyveli 607801, Cuddalore

District, Tamilnadu within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the official

Gazette.

SCHEDULE

Name of the Coal Mining Block: New Patrapara South Coal Mine

(Tehsil Chhendipada, District Angul, State Odisha)

[Plan bearing number NLCIL/NPSCP/CBA/4/1, dated the 9^th March, 2025]

NLC INDIA LIMITED

New Patrapara South Coal Mine

Description of Land

Sl.

No.

Name of Village

Tahasil no/

Thana no.

Tahsil

District

Area in

Hectares

(Approxim

ately)

Remarks

Bagdia

Chhendipada

Angul

40.285

Part

Dasarasahi

Chhendipada

Angul

38.661

Part

Kanaloi

Reserved

Forest

Chhendipada

Angul

27.642

Part

7032

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 22, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Debinagar

Protected

Forest

Chhendipada

Angul

23.777

Part

Jaripal

Chhendipada

Angul

0.261

Part

Kanaloi

Chhendipada

Angul

284.205

Part

Patrapada

Chhendipada

Angul

819.595

Part

Patrapada

jungle

Chhendipada

Angul

115.458

Part

Pipalbahal

Chhendipada

Angul

447.009

Part

Sapoinali

Chhendipada

Angul

60.829

Part

Similipal

Chhendipada

Angul

91.322

Part

Total area: 1949.042 hectares (Approximately) or 4816.189 acres (Approximately).

Boundary Description:

A-B-C: line starts from point ‗A‘ in Bagdia village and passes through Point B in Sapoinali village and ends at point

‗C‘ in Sapoinali village.

C-D-E: line starts from point ‗C‘ in Sapoinali village and passes through point ‗D‘ in Similipal village and ends at

point ‗E‘ in Similipal village.

Line A-B-C-D-E: forms the Eastern boundary of the Mine.

E-F-G-H: Line starts from point ‗E‘ in Similipal village and passes through point ‗F‘ and point `G` in Debinagar PF

and ends at point ‗H‘ in Kanaloi village.

H-I-J: Line starts from point ‗H‘ in Kanaloi village and passes through point `I` in Kanaloi

RF and ends at point ‗J‘ in Kanaloi RF.

Line E-F-G-H -I-J forms the southern boundary of the Mine.

J-K: Line starts from point ‗J‘ in Kanaloi RF and ends at point ‗K‘ in Kanaloi village.

K-L: line start from point `K` in Kanaloi village and ends at point `L` in Patrapada jungle village.

L-M-N: line start from point `L` in Patrapada jungle village passes through point `M` in kanaloi village and ends at

point `N` in Patrapada jungle village.

Line J-K-L-M-N forms the western boundary of the Mine.

N-O-P-Q: line start from point `N` in Patrapada jungle village and passes through point `O` in Patrapada village and

Point`P` in Pipalbahal village and ends at point `Q` in Pipalbahal village.

Q-R-A: line start from point `Q` in pipalbahal village and passes through point `R` in Dasarasahi village and ends at

point `A` in Bagdia village.

Line N-O-P-Q-R-A forms the northern boundary of the Mine.

[F. No43015/10/2025-LAIR]

DARSHAN KUMAR SOLANKI, Director

ृेरोजलयम एवं प्राकृजतक गजस मंत्रालय

नई ददल्ली, 10 नवम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 2004.—जहााँ, भारत सरकार के ृेरोजलयम एवं प्राकृजतक गजस मंत्रालय की अजधसूचना

सं. एस.ओ. 649(ई) ददनांक 09.02.2022 द्वारा, भारत सरकार ने ृेरोजलयम और खजनज ृाइृलाइनों (भूजम में उृभोग

अजधकार का अजधग्रहण) अजधजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 6 की उृधारा (4) के अंतगवत प्रदत्त िजियों का

प्रयोग करते हुए, भूजम में उृभोग अजधकार (Right of User) के अजधग्रहण की घोषणा की थी।

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : नवम् बर 22, 2025/अग्रहायण 1, 1947

7033

और जहााँ, सक्षम प्राजधकारी ने एम/एस गेल (इंजडया) जलजमटेड से प्राप्त सूचना के आधार ृर एक प्रजतवेदन प्रस्ट्तुत

दकया हज, जजसमें अनुरोध दकया गया हज दक ृररजिष्ट (अनुसूची) में वर्तणत वे भू-खण्ड, जो ृाइृलाइन की अंजतम संरेखण

(Final Alignment) ृर नहीं आते हैं, उन्हें अजधसूचना से मुि (De-notify) दकया जाए।

अतएव, भारत सरकार ने उि प्रजतवेदन ृर जवचार करने के उृरांत तथा संतुष्ट होने ृर यह घोजषत दकया हज दक

अनुसूची में उजल्लजखत भूजम में उृभोग अजधकार (Right of User) को अजधसूचना से मुि दकया जाता हज (De-notified

दकया जाता हज)।

जगदीिृुर- हजल्दया-बोकारो धामरा ृाइृलाइन (जे.एच.बी.बी.ृी.एल) एवम स्ट्ृर ृाइृलाइन प्रोजेक्ट

दुगावृुर- हजल्दया, सेक्सन-3 बी

अनुसूची

राज्य - ृजिम बंगाल

जजला

ब्लॉक

म़ौजा

जे एल

नं

नविा

सवे न.

क्षेत्र

संिोजधत क्षेत्र

हेक्टेअर

आर

वगव मीटर

हेक्टेअर

आर

वगव

मीटर

ृूवाव वधवमान

गलसी-2

बाबला

एलआर

620

622

639

1822

1074

1102

1854

1855

[फा. सं. एल-14014/5/2022-जीृी-II(ई-41373)]

रामजीलाल मीना, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 10th November, 2025

S.O. 2004.—Whereas by the notification of Government of India in Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

vide S.O. 649(E) Dated 09.02.2022 Government of India declared acquisition of Right of User in Land, in exercise of

the power conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of

User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962).

And whereas, the Competent Authority, on intimation from M/S GAIL (India) Limited, submitted a report

requesting to de-notify the land parcels, the schedule annexed here to, which are not falling on the final alignment

where the pipeline is laid.

And, whereas, Government of India after considering the said report and on being satisfied, hereby declares

that the Right of User acquired mentioned in the schedule are de-notify.

7034

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 22, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

JAGDISHPUR-HALDIA -BOKARO-DHAMRA PIPELINE (JHBDPL) AND SPUR PIPELINE PROJECT

DURGAPUR-HALDIA, SECTION-3B

LAND SCHEDULE

State : West Bengal

District

Block

Mauza

J.L.

No.

Map

Survey No.

Area

Revised Area

Hect.

Are

Sq.

mtr.

Hect.

Sq.

mtr.

Purba Bardhaman

Galsi- 2

Babla

620

622

639

1822

1074

1102

1854

1855

[F.No.L-14014/5/2022-GP-II (E-41373)]

RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.

संचार मंत्रालय

(डाक जवभाग)

नई ददल्ली, 16 मई, 2025

का.आ. 2005.—केन् र सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम 1976 (यथा

संिोजधत 1987) के जनयम 10 के उृ जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में, डाक जवभाग के जनम् नजलजखत अधीनस्ट् थ कायावलय, जजसके

80 प्रजतित से अजधक अजधकाररयों/कमवचाररयों ने जहन् दी का कायवसाधक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जलया हज, को एतदद्वारा अजधसूजचत

करती हज:-

वररष्ठ अधीक्षक डाकघर का कायावलय,

मंगलूरु मण्डल,

मंगलूरु – 575002

[फा. सं. ई- 11017-1/2024-रा.भा.-13]

ृररमल जसन्हा, उृ महाजनदेिक (ईएमएम/रा. भा.)

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS

(Department of Posts)

New Delhi, the 16th May, 2025

S.O. 2005.—In Pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official Purposes of the

Union) Rules 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies following Sub-ordinate office of the

Department of Posts, where more than 80% Officers/Officials have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

Office of the Superintendent of Post Offices,

Mangaluru Division,

Mangaluru - 575002

[F. No. E-11017-1/2024-OL-13]

PARIMAL SINHA, Dy. Director General (EMM/OL)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : नवम् बर 22, 2025/अग्रहायण 1, 1947

7035

नई ददल्ली, 10 अक् तूबर, 2025

का.आ. 2006.—केन् रीय सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम 1976 (यथा

करती हज:-

इंजडया ृोस्ट्ट ृेमेंट्स बैंक,

कॉृोरेट कायावलय, स्ट्ृीड ृोस्ट्ट सेंटर जबसल्डग,

भाई वीर ससह मागव,

नई ददल् ली 110001

[फा. सं. ई-11017-1/2021-रा.भा.]

डॉ प्रदीृ कुमार, उृ महाजनदेिक (प्रजिक्षण/रा.भा.)

New Delhi, the 10th October, 2025

S.O. 2006.—In Pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official Purposes of the

Union) Rules 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies following Sub-ordinate office of the

Department of Posts, where more than 80% Officers/Officials have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

India post payments Bank,

Corporate Office, Speed Post Center Building,

Bhai veer Singh Marg,

New Delhi– 110001

[F. No. E-11017-1/2021-OL]

Dr. PRADEEP KUMAR, Dy. Director General (Training/OL)

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई ददल्ली, 30 अक् तूबर, 2025

का.आ. 2007.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार मेससव जचराग सैंजडटेक्सट प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री कुमार सदाजिव नेनहे एंड 52

अन्य के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, मुंबई, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स

न.- 53/2018) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ

30.10.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29012/39/2018-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 30th October, 2025

S.O. 2007.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 53/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court-2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

7036

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 22, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

relation to M/s Chirag Sanditext Private Limited and Shri Kumar Sadashiv Nenahe and 52 others which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 30.10.2025.

[No. L-29012/39/2018-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD

PRESIDING OFFICER/LINK OFFICER

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD

Presiding Officer/Link Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/53 of 2018

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

Party No.1 M/s. Chirag Sanditext Ptv. Ltd.,

The Mine Manager,

M/s. Chirag Sanditext Pvt. Ltd.,

Bakol Patlewadi, At. Post- Phondaghat,

Tal. – Kankavli, District- Sindhudurg- 416601.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

Party No.2 (Mr. Kumar Sadashiv Nenehe & 52 Ors.,)

At. Post- Phondaghat

Tal. – Kankavli,

District- Sindhudurg- 416601.

APPEARANCES:

Management

Ms. Pavitra Manesh

Advocate

Mr. Kiran Maruti Mohite

Representative

Workmen

: Mr. Sanjay Anant Teli.

Representative

AWARD

(Delivered on 08-10-2025)

This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-

section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India,

Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-29012/39/2018 (IR(M) dated 29.10.2018. The terms of

reference given in the schedule are as follows:

i. “Whether the action of M/s. Chirag Sanditext Pvt. Ltd., Phondaghat, Sindhudurg District Maharashtra

in stopping the mining w.e.f. 22.01.2016 is legal, justified and proper?”

ii. “Whether the alleged action of M/s. Chirag Sanditext Pvt. Ltd., Phondaghat, Sindhudurg District

Maharashtra in paying 50% of the wages from 22.01.2016 to 30.11.2016 and non-payment of monthly

wages effective from 01.12.2017 to Shri Sadashiv Nanehe and 52 others (list attached) is legal, justified

and proper? If not, what reliefs the workmen are entitled to? What directions, if any, are necessary in the

matter?”

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : नवम् बर 22, 2025/अग्रहायण 1, 1947

7037

Sl. No.

Workmen

Mr. Kumar Sadashiv Nanche

Mr. Vilas Rajaram Samant

Mr. Ramchandra Vithoba Dhuri

Mr. Vijay Rajaram Sawant

Mr. Shivaji Dhondu Solkar

Mr. Anant Suresh Farab

Mr. Sanjay Pandurang Lad

Mr. Vilas Gopal Shitole

Mr. Sandeep Jaganath Mhaskar

Mr. Shekhar Shankar Jadhav

Mr. Shridhar Maruti Ghatge

Mr. Suryakant Sahadev Kadam

Mr. Santosh Gopal Kadam

Mr. Sanjay Vasant Joil

Mr. Dattaram Laxman Joil

Mr. Sandeep Lau Jadhav

Mr. Ajit Madhukar Lad

Mr. Nivrutti Shantaram Nanche

Mr. Sadanand Sahadv Teli

Mr. Pravin Ganpat Tilave

Mr. Sadanand Maruti Ghatge

Mr. Mangesh Ramchandra Mondkar

Mr. Mangesh Maruti Lad

Mr. Vitthal Shadev Hargule

Mr. Sunil Dhondu Nanche

Mr. Rajendra Ramchandra Parab

Mr. Prabhakar Rajaram Mejari

Mr. Dnyaneshwar Shantaram Nanche

Mr. Keshav Raoji Nanche

Mr. Sadanand Ragho Gosavi

Mr. Ashitosh Ramchandra Kanade

Mr. Vitthal Tukaram Lad

Mr. Deepak Lau Jadhav

Mr. Nandkumar Krisha Jadhav

Mr. Sandeep Rajaram Kanade

Mr. Umakant Krishna Jadhav

Mr. Ganesh Vasudev Lad

Mr. Abhimanyu Gangaram Lad

Mr. Santosh Sahadev Marye

Mr. Sanjay Vitthal Nanche

7038

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 22, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Mr. Shyamsunder Vasudev Nanche

Mr. R. P. Shirsath

Mr. Changdev Tambe

Mr. Shrikant Nanche

Mr. Anant Jadhav

Mr. Sanjay Anant Teli

Mr. Sadguru Kuperker

Mr. Ravindra Raghav Solkar

Mr. Gurunath Jagannath Bogle

Mr. Dada Mahadev Mulaye

Mr. Vasanth Mahadev Nanche

Mr. Maruthi Gangaram Lad

Mr. Anup Prakash Bolekar

The case is listed on 13.11.2025, but, today the parties have jointly moved an application before the Tribunal

for taking the matter on today‘s Board. In the interest of justice, application for taking the matter on today‘s Board is

hereby allowed.

The First Party and the Second Party jointly states that, the dispute raised in the present Reference has been

settled between the parties and accordingly the Memorandum of Settlement has been signed between the parties. Both

the parties pray that, the present Reference be disposed in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement signed between

the parties. There are 53 workmen present in the Reference. Since, it is not possible for all the employees to remain

present before the Hon‘ble Tribunal, so the Second Party employees, who have signed hereby Authorise Mr. Sanjay

Anant Teli to represent the Second Party before the Court. The First Party has appointed Mr. Kiran Maruti Mohite to

attend the Hon‘ble Tribunal on behalf of the First Party for completing the formalities for disposal of the Reference.

The Ministry, time to time encourages settling the cases, pending before the Court by means of mediation or

by presenting the cases before the Lok Adalat. In the present case, both the parties have settled their dispute amicably

out of the Court, in terms and conditions mentioned in the memo of compromise, signed by both the parties. Both

parties therefore pray to dispose off the matter as settled.

In view of this, the matter is disposed off as settled.

In the result, I proceed to pass the following order-

ORDER

i. The Reference is disposed off as settled.

ii. The parties to bear their own cost.

iii. The Award be sent to the Central Government.

Date: 08-10-2025

Justice SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer

नई ददल्ली, 18 नवम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 2008.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

cSad vkQW cMksnk ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a34/2022) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-39025/01/2025-आईआर((ch-II)-35]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : नवम् बर 22, 2025/अग्रहायण 1, 1947

7039

New Delhi, the 18th November, 2025

S.O. 2008.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 34/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and

their workmen.

[No. L-39025/01/2025- IR(B-II)-35]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/RC/34/2022

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

Santosh Saxena,

Aged about 57 years,

S/o Shri Madanlal Saxena,

R/o Ward No. 9, near Amar Band,

Rajendra Nagar, Baksaria,

Vidisha, District Vidisha (M.P.)

Workman

Versues

Bank of Baroda,

Through General Manager,

Bhadodara Bhavan-7th Floor,

R.C. Dutt Road Gadodara,

Gujarat 39007 And Others

Management

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 03^rdday of October - 2025)

Notices were issued to both the parties. They appeared and filed their respective statement of claim and

defense.

The Workman Santosh Saxena has filed this petition under Section 2(A) (2&3) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (in short the ‗Act‘) against his termination with the case that, he was first engaged as a Gunman by the Bank and

worked in the Gyarashpura Branch of the Bank as a Gunman and worked from 24.08.2016 till 12.04.2022. His monthly

wages were Rs. 16,000/- per month. The Management disengaged him from 12.04.2022 without any notice or

compensation which is in violation of Section 25G and 25H of the Act. The workman has thus prayed that holding the

action of the Management in disengaging him without any notice or compensation, he be held entitled to be reinstated

with back wages and benefits.

None appeared for the Bank. No written statement of defense was filed by the Bank hence the case proceeded

ex-parte against the Management.

In evidence, the Workman has filed his affidavit as his examination in chief. He has also filed photocopy

documents which are Commendation Letter, Attendance Sheet, and Banks certified statement of his account.

I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for the Workman. None was present for Management. I have gone

through the record as well.

The reference itself is the issue for determination. Though the workman has corroborated his case as

mentioned above taken by him in his statement of claim but the documents militate against his allegations. The document

shown that he was an outsourced employee, engaged by the Outsourcing Company, and had posted him in the Branch as a

7040

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 22, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Security Guard. It was the Outsourcing Company which had paid the Workman his wages and also deposited his PF dues.

Hence, no relation of employee and employer is held proved against the Workman.

Accordingly, there is no occasion of disengagement of the Workman by the Bank modified that the

Workman was disengaged by the outsourcing company for certain reasons.

Hence, in the light of above discussions, holding that there was no employee and employer relation

between the Workman and the Bank, hence there is no occasion of disengagement of the Workman by the Bank.

Reference stands answered accordingly.

No order as to cost.

DATE:- 03/10/2025

P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 18 नवम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 2009.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

dsujk बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a15/2009) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12012/59/2008-आईआर(ch-II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 18th November, 2025

S.O. 2009.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 15/2009) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and

their workmen.

[No. L-12012/59/2008- IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/15/2009

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S.(Retd.)

Smt. Jyoti Sahu, W/o Tarun Sahu,

Qtr No. 112, N-4, 'C' Sector, Piplani,

BHEL Area, Bhopal (MP)

Workman

The Dy. General Manager,

Canara Bank, Disciplinary action cell,

Circle Office, Ansal Tower,

8th Floor,38 Nehru Place,

New Delhi-110019

Management

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : नवम् बर 22, 2025/अग्रहायण 1, 1947

7041

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 15^th day of September- 2025)

As per letter dated 05/02/2009 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference

has been made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act’) as per

Notification No. L-12012/59/2008 (IR(B-II) dt. 05/02/2009. The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Dy. General Manager, Canara Bank, Circle Office, New Delhi

in issuing orders of dismissal from service to Smt Jyoti Sahu W/o Tarun Sahu w.e.f. 26.05.06 is justified?

What relief the workman is entitled to?”

Case of the applicant/Workman, is mainly that while she was in service of the management bank, she was

issued a charge sheet on 05.05.2005 which was vague and ambiguous. The charges were not specified and the

documents in support of the charges were not proved inspite of request by her. The workman was suspended during

the inquiry. Before issuing charge sheet and suspension, she was under treatment and for that she had been granted

leave on her request by the management. There was some complications developed after she had gone for operation

for her abortion prior to her suspension. She also developed hypertension, thyroid and other elements for which she

was under continuous treatment and she produced medical certificates of Doctors of Government Hospital and

Doctors in the panel of the management Bank before the Inquiry Officer explaining her absence and inability to take

part in the departmental inquiry on the date fixed but ignoring her prayer the statement of witnesses were recorded in

her absence. She could not arrange a defense assistant to defend her during the inquiry. The Union also did not come

forward to provide her defense assistant, hence she requested permission to engage one retired Bank Officer of State

Bank of India for her defence or to permit her to engage an Advocate for it which was refused by the management

Bank. The inquiry Officer refused adjournment filed by her with certificate of Government Doctor and the inquiry

proceeded against him which was against the Rules and Principles of natural justice.

The enquiry officer wrongly held the charges against the workman proved, the Disciplinary as well Appellate

Authority wrongly concurred with the finding of the enquiry officer and awarded punishment of her dismissal from

service, which is excessive to the charges proved. She has thus, requested that holding the action of management, in

awarding her punishment of dismissal from service, she be held entitled to be reinstated with all back wages and

benefits.

Management has taken a case, in brief, that while the workman was working as Clerk in the Arera Colony

Branch of the Bank at Bhopal, during the period 08.10.2001 to 29.03.2005, she was found indulged in fraudulent acts

of diverting the clearing cheques of customers to her own account and to the accounts of her close relatives and

misappropriated a total amount of Rs. 46,525/-, details are as follows:-

a) On 30.11.2004 a credit of Rs.4,962/- was given to the Current Account No.1353 of M/s New Sahu

Medical Stores, maintained with the branch, against a clearing instrument. The said credit was given

against a Demand Draft No.286705 dated 25.09.2004 of the same amount, which was in favour of

Canara Bank, payable at Bhopal and drawn by Bank Of Baroda, Kymore Branch. The proprietor of the

said firm M/s. New Sahu Medical Stores is Sri. Tarun Sahu, who is husband of first party. Sri. Tarun

Sahu has confirmed that he had not deposited any cheque of like amount, in his Current Account No.

1353, for which the credit was given to the account on 30.11.2004. It was noted that on 29.11.2004,

while working at the clearing department of the branch, she prepared a credit slip for CA 1353 of M/s.

New Sahu Medical Stores for Rs.4,962/- and lodged in clearing against the DD No. 296705 dated

25.9.2004, which was neither meant for CA 1353 nor pertaining to Arera Colony, Bhopal branch, but

was towards the proceeds of OSC No. 374/2004 of Canara Bank. BHEL, Bhopal branch. She got

possession of the said Demand Draft and instead of making a search for the beneficiary's account, she

had fraudulently diverted the said Demand Draft to Current Account No.1353 of her husband and thus

misappropriated the amount of Rs.4,962/-.

b) On 19.01.2005, a credit of Rs.400/- was given to SB 10101 maintained with the branch, against a

clearing instrument. The said credit was given against a Dividend Warrant, which was said to be in

favour of Sri. M V R Satyanaravana and was in no way pertaining to her. It was noted that on

18.01.2005, while working in Clearing Department of bank's Arera Colony. Bhopal branch, she had

prepared a credit slip for her SB A/c No. 10101 for Rs.400/- and lodged in Clearing against the said

Dividend Warrant of the same amount, which was in favour of Sri. M V R Satyanaravana. The said

credit of Rs.400/- was diverted by her, to her account, knowingly well that it did not pertain to her and

thus she had misused her official position in the bank and misappropriated the amount of Rs.400/-.

c) On 1.2.2005, the credits of Rs 12,000/ & Rs 4,943/ was given to Current, Account No.1353 of

M/s. New Sahu Medical Stores and SB a/c No. 10475 of Smt. Maya Sahu (Joint Account) respectively

maintained with the branch against a single clearing instrument. The said credits were given against a

Dividend Warrant for Rs.16,943/-drawn in favour of Shri. Devdas Sharma/Smt. Shantji Sharma and

7042

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 22, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

which were meant for their SB a/c No.3455, maintained with the bank's Arera Colony. Bhopal branch. It

was noted that on 31.1.2005, while working in Clearing Department of the branch, Smt. Jyothi Sahu had

prepared a credit slip for Current Account No. 1353 of M/s. New Sahu Stores for Rs.12,000/- and also a

credit slip for SB a/c No.10475 of Smt. Maya Sahu (joint account) for Rs.4,943/and lodged in Clearing,

against a Dividend Warrant for Rs.16,943/-. The proprietor of M/s. New Sahu Medical Stores -

Sri. Tarun Sahu, is husband of Smt. Jyothi Sahu and Smt. Maya Sahu and other joint account holders are

close relatives of Smt. Jyothi Sahu. The said Dividend Warrant was one out of the FOUR instruments

deposited by Sri. Dev Das Sharma. Smt. Shanthi Sharma, towards credit of their SB a/c No.3455 on

31.1.2005. Out of the four instruments deposited by the customer, there were two instruments of like

amount of Rs.16,943/- favouring Sri. Dev Das Sharma and Smt. Shanthi Sharma. Smt. Jyothi Sahu

removed one instrument of Rs. 16,943/- and altered the amount of Paying-in-slip deposited by the said

customer from Rs.64,256/- to Rs.47,313/- to show that, there were only THREE instruments attached to

the slip of the customer and the same was used by Smt. Jyothi Sahu, to give credit to the said Current

Account No. 1353 and SB a/c No.10475, having full knowledge that the instrument attached to the

forged slip was prepared and duly initialled by Smt. Jyothi Sahu were not meant for her, to which the

credit was given. The above acts, clearly reveal that Smt. Jyothi Sahu had purposely and knowingly

committed the fraud of diverting the funds of the customer to the accounts of her close relatives and

misappropriated the amount of Rs. 16,943/-

d) On 1.2.2005, a credit of Rs.24,220/ was given to SB a/c No. 10475 of Smt. Maya Sahu (Joint account)

maintained with the branch against two clearing instruments. The said credit was given against two

instruments of Rs. 13,700/- & Rs.10,520/-drawn in favour of M/s. My Car (Bhopal) Pvt., Ltd., a

constituent of bank's Arera Colony, Bhopal branch, maintaining amongst others, a Current Account

No. 1402. It was noted that on 31.01.2005, while working in the clearing department of the branch,

Smt Jyothi Sahu had prepared a credit slip for SB A/c No. 10475 for Rs. 24,220/-deposited there against

two instruments as detailed below-

Instrument

No. & Date

Amount

Instrument favoring

Instrument

drawn on

No.

235620

Dt. 24.01.05

13,700/-

My Car (Bhopal) Pvt.

Ltd.

Standard

Chartered Bank,

Bhopal

Ch.

No.

589533

Dt. 28.01.05

10,520/

My Car (Bhopal) Pvt.

Ltd.

Bank of Baroda

Bhopal

The above instruments were deposited by M/s. My Car (Bhopal) Pvt. Ltd. for collection towards credit

of their Current Account No. 1402 with bank's Arena Colony, Bhopal brunch. While attending to

outward clearing. Smt. Jyothi Sahu admittedly removed the original Paying-in-slips deposited by

M/s. My Car (Bhopal) Pvt. Ltd. and replaced it with credit slip for SB Ac No.10475 of Smt. Maya Sahu

(Joint Account) knowing fully well that the instrument attached to the said forged slip so prepared and

initialled by Smt., Jyothi Sahu, was not meant for the accounts to which the credit was given. Smt. Maya

Sahu & other Joint Account Holders are close relatives of Smt. Jyothi Sahu. The above acts of Smt.

Jyothi Sahu clearly reveals that she had purposely and knowingly committed the fraud of diverting funds

of the customer to the accounts of her close relatives and misappropriated the amount of Rs. 24220/-.

She was placed under suspension and a charge sheet under Regulation 9(1)(a) of Canara Bank Service Code,

was issued by the Disciplinary Authority on 05.05.2005, she was asked to show cause with respect to the charges

which she did reply. Finding her reply not sufficient, a departmental enquiry was ordered, which was conducted

strictly, according to rules and procedures provided, the workman was given full opportunity of hearing and to defend

her case. The enquiry officer submitted enquiry report holding the charges proved. The workman was issued a show

cause notice with respect to the enquiry report by the Disciplinary Authority and finding her reply of show cause not

sufficient, she was awarded punishment of dismissal from service.

It is further the case of management that the misconduct proved was an act of moral turpitude and lacks

integrity, hence the punishment awarded is not excessive.

The management has requested that the reference be answered against the workman.

The workman filed her rejoinder, wherein, she has mainly reiterated her case.

Following issues were framed on the basis of pleadings by my Learned Predecessor vide his order

dated 06.01.2015.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : नवम् बर 22, 2025/अग्रहायण 1, 1947

7043

a. Whether the enquiry conducted against the workman is proper and legal?

b. Whether misconduct alleged against the workman is proved from evidence in enquiry

proceedings?

Whether the punishment of dismissal of workman is just, proper and legal?

d. If so, what relief the workman is entitled to?

Issue No. 1, was taken as preliminary issue.

After taking evidence from both the sides on preliminary issue, it was decided vide order dated 13.09.2022,

the enquiry was held vitiated in law. The management was given an opportunity to prove the charges before this

Tribunal. This order is part of this judgment.

Thereafter, management has filed affidavits of three witnesses Mrs. Shashi Nimje, Mr. Manoj Sood and Mr.

O.P. Budholia, as their Examination-in-chief. They have been cross-examined by the workman side. Management has

also relied on evidence with respect to the enquiry papers proved by them earlier, to be referred to as and when

require.

The workman has filed her affidavit as her Examination-in-chief. She has been cross-examined by the

management side.

I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for the workman Mr. Arun Patel and Mr. Abhinav S. Kherdikar,

Learned Counsel for the Management Bank. I have gone through the record as well.

Issue No. 2

The charges have been detailed earlier.

Mrs. Shashi Nimje, the management witness has stated in her affidavit as her Examination-in-chief that she

was made In-charge of clearing department of the Bank, Arera Colony Branch, Bhopal, during the period 28.09.2004,

when Mr. J.D. Panjwani was in training on 31.01.2005, Mr. J.D. Panjwani had to leave for training on that date, also

she was made In-charge of clearing department of the Branch and was responsible for counter signing of the clearing

cheques.

The workman, Smt. Jyoti Sahu, was handling the clearing inward and outward department. On 03.02.2005,

she received a phone call from clearing section that there was a clearing difference of Rs. 70/-. During the verification

of differences, it was found by her that only three cheques against account of Mr. D.D. Sharma, the account holder

had been deposited for clearing, whereas, the account holder had deposited four cheques for clearance. She contacted

the account holder, Mr. Sharma, on the same day, she again contacted him on the next day, the account holder came in

the branch and verified that he had deposited four cheques. The account holder further told the witness that he had

made a complaint with respect to short credit made to his account, this matter was proceeded into the notice of the

Branch Head and it was found that the difference amount of Rs. 16,943/- was made by altering the original slip of SB

A/c of Mr. Sharma, filled by him for Rs. 64,256/- to Rs. 47,313/-, it was also found that the pay slip dated 31.01.2005

of amount of Rs. 12,000/- was credited in the current account of M/s New Sahu Medical Store with Mr. Tarun Sahu,

husband of the workman was proprietor and another pay slip dated 31.01.2005, regarding amount of Rs. 4,943/- was

credited into SB A/c of Mrs. Maya Sahu, pay slips with respect to these amounts were filled and signed by the

workman.

It was also found that the workman generated the clearing waste after lodging and placing them before the

witness for verification, she omitted three cheques though lodged with batch No. 44 & 67 i.e., these cheques lodged

by her did not appear in the clearing waste of 01.02.2005, it came out after thorough checking that the workman had

manipulated these wrong credits by making credit slips in the name of M/s New Sahu Medical Shop and SB A/c

10475. She purposedly did not take the printout of the balances which claimed these transactions, in this way, it was

also came out that a credit slip of Rs. 24,220/- was made in the account No. 10475, which was not bearing the

signature of witness as her verification.

The instruments were two cheques in favour of M/s My Car Bhopal Pvt. Ltd, who confirmed that they had

deposited two cheques of Rs. 10,520/- and Rs. 13,700/-, were deposited by them which were credited by the workman

in the SB A/c 10475, without authority the workman further removed the original credit slip of the payer of the

cheques.

In her cross-examination, this witness has stated that the demand draft and cheques were first taken by her.

She used to handover these instruments to the workman for posting. The workman used to post these instruments in

the system and thereafter return them to the witness, the staff peon used to stamp the instruments, the instruments

posted in the system were sent to clearing house next day, clearing house used to send the instruments to the issuing

Banks. This witness further states that the instruments were sent to the clearing house in hardcopy and were sent to

issuing Banks from the clearing house in the hardcopy. She further stated that when the instrument was presented

7044

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 22, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

before her a deposit slip was also attached with the instrument, she used to compare the instrument and the deposit

slip and thereafter used to send it to the workman for posting. After posting, she used to verify the posted instrument

by comparing the names, account numbers and amount from the list, which the workman used to prepare. She admits,

that she was also punished in this incident for dereliction of duty, there is nothing in her cross-examination to discredit

her.

The another management witness Mr. Manoj Sood, has stated in his affidavit as his Examination-in-Chief

that he was deputed by the Bank to conduct preliminary enquiry in this matter, he found that demand draft No.

286705 dated 25.09.2004 involving bank of Baroda and Canara Bank drawn for Rs. 4962/- in favour of Canara Bank

by Bank of Baroda, Kymore Branch and drawn on Bank of Baroda, Bhopal was intended for a specific operational

clearing, it was erroneously credited to the current account No. 1353 of M/s Sahu Medical Store with the Arera

Colony Branch of Canara Bank, this was brought to light when discrepancies were noted during subsequent

verification processes, authenticated and origin of demand draft were verified through the photocopy obtained from

Bank of Baroda who confirmed its issuance and payment details.

It also came out that the workman Smt. Jyoti Sahu, who was working in the clearing department of the

Branch had prepared and submitted credit slip (Pay in Slip) dated 29.11.2004 bearing her signature, this demand draft

was originally meant to liquidate an OSC initiated by Bank of Baroda‘s BHEL Branch, Bhopal, OSC No. 374/2004

for Rs. 5,000/- sent on 18.09.2004 to Bank of Baroda, Kymore Branch had remained outstanding, the workman

admitted her guilt and further confessed inadvertent use of Demand draft for an unintended purpose driven by

temptation to rectify unclaimed proceeds of the instruments under her care.

This witness further states that on 19.01.2005 a credit of Rs. 400/- was given to SB A/c 10101 of the

workman against clearing instrument bearing No. 88745 of Corporation Bank, she confessed her involvement with

respect to this transaction also as the instrument was a Dividend Warrant meant for another customer, came into her

possession for collection of the amount. He has in this manner corroborated all the charges.

In his cross-examination, he has stated that an enquiry was conducted against the officer Mrs. Shashi Nimje

also in this respect relating to same charges Mrs. Shashi Nimje was an officer who was under obligation to check the

instruments, she was posted as Stop-Gap arrangement. She has further stated about the procedure with respect to

clearance, there is nothing more in his cross-examination to discredit him.

The third management witness, Mr. O.P. Budholia, who was Assistant General Manager, was a Senior

Manager in the Branch at the time of incident, he has also corroborated the allegations in his Examination-in-Chief. In

his cross-examination, he has elaborated the procedure with respect to presentation and clearing, there is nothing in

his cross-examination to discredit him.

The workman has examined herself in defense. She has filed her affidavit as her Examination-in-Chief. She

has stated that she used to do instrument posting under the direction of officers and then return the instruments to her

officer. The instruments were checked by the officer also the posting and after comparison when it was found that

there is not discrepancy, they were approved for clearing and any amount could be transferred in any account only

after approval of the officer there was only one computer having one password which was known to every employee,

she never made intentionally, nor did she do any manipulation in any document by way of making wrong entry with

respect to any instrument infact, all these manipulations were done by Mrs. Shashi Nimje, who was the passing

officer and was entrusted for checking the instruments infact, it is the officer Mrs. Shashi Nimje who did all the

manipulation and transferred the amount in wrong accounts.

In her cross-examination, she stated that her job was to post the instruments she admits that M/s New Sahu

Medical Store, is owned by her husband and further states that she does not know Smt. Maya Sahu also that this Maya

Sahu is not her relative. Regarding the written admission with respect to the charge, she states that she wrote this

admission under pressure and threat of superior officers.

The settled proposition of law, with respect to prove of charges in a departmental proceeding, crystallized

through various pronouncements is that the charges in departmental proceedings are not required to be proved beyond

reasonable doubt. As it is required in the criminal trial following judgments have been reproduced in this respect:-

Scope of disciplinary proceedings and scope of criminal proceedings are quite distinct, exclusive and

independent of each other. Standards of proof in the two proceedings are also different. Ref. T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. vs.

K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255

Standard of proof in a departmental enquiry which is quasicriminal/quasi-judicial in nature: Disciplinary

proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge.

Although the charges in a departmental proceedings are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e.

beyond all reasonable doubts, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasijudicial

function, who upon analyzing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance

of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into

consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : नवम् बर 22, 2025/अग्रहायण 1, 1947

7045

proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures.

Ref: (i) Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat & Another, AIR 2013 SC 1513 (paras 10, 11, 12 & 13). (ii)

M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 88 (Para 25)

In the cases of (i) NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association Vs NOIDA & others, AIR 2007 SC 1161 (i4i) State

Bank of India Vs. R.B. Sharma, (2004) 7 SCC 27 (iii) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. T. Srinivas, (2004)

7 SCC 442 (iv) Depot Manager, APSRTC Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, (1997) 2 SCC 699 (v) Captain M. Paul

Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited (1999) 3 SCC 679 and (vi) State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena,

(1996) 6 SCC 417 (vi) Pratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 (vii) Jang Bahadur Singh Vs. Baij

Nath, AIR 1969 SC 30, it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "the purpose of departmental

enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. Departmental Enquiry is to maintain

discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. Crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of

omission of public duty. The enquiry in a departmental proceeding relates to the conduct or breach of duty by

the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. It is

the settled legal position that the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded in

a departmental proceeding. Criminal Proceedings and the departmental proceeding under enquiry can go on

simultaneously."

In the case of T.N.C.S. Corporation Ltd. Vs. K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255, it has been held by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court that the scopes of the disciplinary proceedings and of criminal proceedings are quite distinct,

exclusive and independent of each other. Standards of proof in the two proceedings are also different.

In the cases of Mohd. Saleem Siddiqui Vs. State of UP & others, (2011) 2 UPLBEC 1575 (Allahabad High

Court) and Ajeet Kumar Naag Vs. General Manager Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Haldia, JT 2005 (8) SC

425, the distinction between departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings has been drawn as under: "The

two proceedings i.e. criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have

different objectives. The object of criminal proceedings is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender and the

purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in

accordance service rules the rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar.

In criminal law burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of

accused beyond reasonable doubts, he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the

other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of

preponderance of probability. Procedure with respect to standard of proof in criminal case and departmental

enquiry are different. In the case of departmental enquiry the technical rules of evidence have no application

and the doctrine of "proof beyond doubt" has also no application in the departmental enquiry. Criminal

prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society or for breach of

which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission

in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the

service and efficiency of public service. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental

enquiry and trial of criminal case. "

Now testing the evidence of the aforesaid three management witnesses on the aforesaid settled principles

with respect to prove of charge, it comes out that there is sufficient evidence to involve and infer that the workman

was a party to the unauthorized transactions and was a beneficiary also because some of the amounts were credited in

the account of her husband, hence, charges as levelled in the charge sheet are held proved against the workman.

Issue No. 2 is answered accordingly.

Issue No. 3.

It has been submitted on behalf of the workman that she has been awarded maximum punishment, her

otherwise service record is spotless, hence, the punishment is excessive to the charge. The next submission is that

Mrs. Shahsi Nimje, has also been punished with respect to these transactions for the charge of dereliction of duty but

only with reduction of increments. The workman is entitled to parity in punishment.

Learned Counsel for management has submitted that the charge proved is an Act of moral turpitude of

honesty and integrity are the core value which an employer demands from his employee, no employer can afford to

continue an employee whose integrity and honesty is in question, furthermore, this Tribunal is not an Appellate

Authority and this is also settled law that dismissal can be awarded with respect to first misconduct depending on the

nature of the charge proved. Learned counsel has also submitted that since the workman was primary responsible for

the misconduct whereas, Mrs. Shahsi Nimje was responsible for lack of effective supervision, the workman is not

entitled to parity in punishment.

Learned Counsel further submits that hence, the punishment awarded is not disproportionate and it need not

be disturbed.

7046

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 22, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The settled proposition of law is that the punishment can be interfered by this Tribunal only when it is so

disproportionate to the charge that it shocks the conscience of this Tribunal. Following judgments are being referred

to in this respect.

Hon‘ble Apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 while discussing about the

scope of judicial review, in disciplinary matters, has observed as under:

“The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its

own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary

authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would

appropriately mold the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty

imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, imposed appropriate

punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.”

In DG, RPF vs. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, Hon‘ble Apex Court has observed that:

“6…………. Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed by the

High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion that the

punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the relevant factors

including the nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed earlier, the nature of

duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of an discipline required to be

maintained, and the department/establishment which the delinquent person concerned works.”

In United Commercial Bank vs. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364 Hon‘ble Apex Court on review of a long

line of cases and the principles of judicial review of administrative action under English law summarized the legal

position in the following words:

“11.

The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not interfere

with the administrators’ decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was

shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards.

In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court would not go into the correctness of the

choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the

administrator. The scope of judicial review is judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-

making process and not the decision.

12.

To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate

authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further, to

shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording

cogent reasons in support thereof.‖

In Union of India vs. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 Hon‘ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal position

as follows:

“8.

……… The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of

disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the punishment only if it finds the

same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved.”

In State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580 Hon‘ble Supreme Court stated that:

“The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless

shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review.

Hon‘ble Apex Court in Administrator, UnionTerritory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulbhia M. Lad

(2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 101 has observed that

“The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising the power of judicial review, the

High Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the disciplinary authority,

and/or on appeal the appellate authority with regard to the imposition of punishment unless such

discretion suffers from illegality or material procedural irregularity or that would shock the conscience of

the court/tribunal. The exercise of discretion in imposition of punishment by the disciplinary authority or

appellate authority is dependent on host of factors such as gravity of misconduct, past conduct, the nature

of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the position that the delinquent holds, previous

penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be maintained in the department or establishment he works.

Ordinarily the court or the tribunal would not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts.

This extract is taken from State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584 :

(2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 721 : 2011 SCC OnLine SC 416 at page 587

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : नवम् बर 22, 2025/अग्रहायण 1, 1947

7047

7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in

the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record.

If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of

adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the

findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in

departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly

perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived

at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the

findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated

or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations.

(Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [(1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80 : (1996) 32 ATC 44]

, Union of India v. G. Ganayutham [(1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806] , Bank of India v. Degala

Suryanarayana [(1999) 5 SCC 762 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1036] and High Court of Judicature at

Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil [(2000) 1 SCC 416 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 144] .)

In Air India Corporation Bombay vs. V.A. Ravellow 1972 (25) FLR 319 (SC) it has been observed that:

“Once the employer has lost the confidence in the employee and the bona fide loss of confidence

is affirmed, the order of punishment must be considered to be immune from challenge, for the reason that

discharging the office of trust and confidence requires absolute integrity, and in a case of loss of

confidence, reinstatement cannot be directed.‖

In Knhaiyalal Agarwal and others vs. Factory Manager, Gwaliar Sugar Co. Ltd. AIR 2001 SC 3645

Hon‘ble Apex Court laid down the test for loss of confidence to find out as to whether there was bona fide loss of

confidence in the employee, observing that:

“Loss of confidence cannot be subjective, based upon the mind of the management. Objective facts which

would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the management, regarding trust worthiness or

reliability of the employee, must be alleged and proved.”

On the basis of above submissions and the settled proposition of law in this respect as mentioned above, the

punishment awarded to the workman cannot be held to be shockingly disproportionate to warrant any interference by

this Tribunal, hence, holding the punishment not disproportionate to the charged proved.

Issue No. 3 is answered accordingly.

Issue No. 4

In light of discussion and findings recorded, the workman is held entitled to no relief.

Issue No. 4 is answered accordingly.

On the basis of above discussion and findings, the reference deserves to be answered as follows:-

AWARD

Holding the action of the management of Dy. General Manager, Canara Bank, Circle Office, New Delhi

in issuing orders of dismissal from service to Smt Jyoti Sahu W/o Tarun Sahu w.e.f. 26.05.06 justified, the

workman is held entitled to no relief.”

No order as to cost.

DATE:- 15/09/2025

P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 18 नवम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 2010.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

iatkc us”kuy बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a23/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12012/08/2018-आईआर(ch-II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

7048

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 22, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 1, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 18th November, 2025

S.O. 2010.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 23/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank

and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/08/2018- IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/23/2018

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S.(Retd.)

Shri Hemant Yadav,

S/o Shri Nandkishore Yadav,

R/o Ward No. 7, South Itarsi,

District Hoshangabad, (M.P.),

Workman

Versues

The Circle Head,

Punjab National Bank,

Zonal Office, HRD,

Arera Hills.

Bhopal (M.P.)

Management

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 30^thday of September - 2025)

As per letter dated 25.04.2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘)as per Notification No. L-

12012/08/2018 (IR(B-II)) dt. 25.04.2018. The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Bhopal in terminating

the services of workman Shri Hemant Yadav w.e.f. May, 2016, alleged to be working from 30.09.2010 is just &

proper? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”

Notices were issued to both the parties. They appeared and filed their respective statement of claim and

defense.

Case of the Workman is mainly that, he was appointed with the Bank as Business Fascilitator on

30.09.2010. His job was to get opened the Fixed Deposits, Recurring Deposits and recovery of non-performing

Accounts, Collection of Cheque, and keep update with the status of loan recoveries. He worked with management till

17.02.2017 when he was disengaged by Management without any notice or compensation which is in violation of

Section 25F and 25G. He was shown as a Contract Employee by Management just to deny him his legally admissible

benefits under the Act hence any such contract is sham and bogus in the light of Section 23 of Indian Contract Act,

1872. The workman has thus prayed that holding his disengagement against law, he be reinstated with back-wages

and benefits.

The Management has taken a case that, he was appointed on contract basis and after the tenure of contract

ended and was not renewed further by the Bank he stood terminated. Hence, his case is not retrenchment under the

Act, Management has thus prayed that the reference be answered against the Workman.

In evidence, the Workman filed his appointment letter and appointment contract both admitted by

Management as Exhibit W-1 and W-2. He did not filed any affidavit as his examination in chief, nor did he filed any

other evidence.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : नवम् बर 22, 2025/अग्रहायण 1, 1947

7049

Management has filed Circular No. 08/2023 dated 18.04.2023 (Copy). No other evidence or affidavit has

been filed by Management.

At the time of argument none appeared for the Workman hence argument of Learned Counsel Mr. Neeraj

Kewat were heard for Management. I have gone through the record as well.

The reference itself is the issue for determination in the case in hand.

The initial burden to prove his case that in fact his job was of permanent and perennial nature and also that

the Contract is a sham contract as well the fact that he continuously worked for 240 days in every year or at least the

year preceding the date of alleged termination of his services is on the Workman.

Case of the Workman is that, he was employed on contract basis, from 04.01.2011 which was originally for

one year but was renewed till 12.05.2016. Thereafter, is contract of service was not renewed.

Section 2 (oo) of the Act requires to be referred here which reads as follows :-

(oo) “retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason

whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include—

(a)

voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b)

retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or

(bb)

termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of

employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract

being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or

(c)

termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health;

Since, the workman was appointed on for a fixed tenure on contract basis his disengagement on nonrenewal

of service contract is not a retrenchment as defined under the Act.

In the light of the above discussion and findings, the reference deserves to be answered against the

Workman as follows.

AWARD

Holding that the disengagement of the Workman due to non renewal of his work agreement is not

retrenchment, the action of Management in terminating his services is held just legal and proper. The Workman is

entitled to no relief.

No order as to cost.

DATE:- 30/09/2025

P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054. GORAKHA NATH

YADAVA

Digitally signed by GORAKHA

NATH YADAVA

Date: 2025.11.24 14:35:54 +05'30'