Chattisgarh High Court
Ramji Khande vs Zila Shahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit on 4 February, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:6214
NAFR
RAVI
SHANKAR
MANDAVI HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed by
RAVI SHANKAR
MANDAVI
Date: 2025.02.07
21:06:57 +0530
WPS No. 979 of 2025
1 - Ramji Khande S/o Late Sakharam Khande Aged About 52 Years R/o
Ward No. - 1, Nawagarh, District- Bemetara (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - Zila Shahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Durg Acting In The Premises
Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Durg
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Manish Upadhyay, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
04/02/2025
1. Heard Ms. Anuja Sharma, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. B.P.
Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Manish
Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent who is appearing
on advance copy.
2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following
reliefs:
"10.1. A writ and/ or an order in the nature of
appropriate writ do issue calling for the records from
the respondent authorities pertaining to the petitioner's
case for its perusal, if deem fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of
certiorari do issue quashing the impugned order dated
10.1.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent
being illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
10.3 Cost of the proceedings.
10.4 Any other writs and directions that may be
deemed fit and just in the facts & circumstances of
case."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially vide notice
dated 19.09.2022 he was issued show cause notice and it has
been stated that two annual increments is proposed to be withheld
from the petitioner, however subsequently vide order dated
10/01/2025 termination order has been passed which is not in
accordance with law as earlier this order was not proposed to be
passed against the petitioner. He has placed reliance upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Isolators
and Isolators Through its Proprietor Sandhya Mishra Vs.
Madhya Pradesh Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limted and
Another reported in (2023) 8 SCC 607 in which at para 35 it has
been stated as under:-
"35.As regards the principles of law applicable to the
case, we need not elaborate on various decisions cited at
the Bar. Suffice it would be to take note of the decision in
UMC Technologies (2021) 2 SCC 551 wherein, the
substance of the other relevant decisions has also been
duly noticed by this Court while explaining the principles
governing such actions of debarment/blacklisting.
Therein, this Court, inter alia, underscored the
requirement of specific show-cause notice and referred
to the settled principles in the following terms:(SCC
pp.558-61, paras 13-14 & 16-19)
"13. At the outset, it must be noted that it is the first
principle of civilised jurisprudence that a person
against whom any action is sought to be taken or
whose right or interests are being affected should be
given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The
basic principle of natural justice is that before
adjudication starts, the authority concerned should
give to the affected party a notice of the case against
him so that he can defend himself. Such notice should
be adequate and the grounds necessitating action and
the penalty/action proposed should be mentioned
specifically and unambiguously. An order travelling
beyond the bounds of notice is impermissible and
without jurisdiction to that extent. This Court in Nasir
Ahmad v. Custodian General, Evacuee Property,
(1980) 3 SCC 1 has held that it is essential for the
notice to specify the particular grounds on the basis of
which an action is proposed to be taken so as to
enable the noticee to answer the case against him. If
these conditions are not satisfied, the person cannot
be said to have been granted any reasonable
opportunity of being heard."
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
may be allowed to make a representation before the authorities
concerned as it seems that prima facie an order which is
apparently not in accordance with law has been passed and
perhaps it would have been rectified by the respondent when the
said facts would have been brought before their knowledge.
5. For this learned counsel for the respondent who is appearing on
advance copy is having no objection and he submits that if the
petitioner files an application/representation then the same will be
considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders will be
passed.
6. Since by the impugned order termination order has been passed,
it is directed to the petitioner to file an appropriate
application/representation before the authorities within three days
and in turn the authorities are directed to decide the same within
seven days.
7. It is made clear that the petition was not heard on merits.
8. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with aforesaid
observations and directions.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Ravi Mandavi
