Chattisgarh High Court
Rajaram Verma vs Zila Shahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit on 7 February, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:7105
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 1093 of 2025
1 - Rajaram Verma S/o Shri Suresh Verma Aged About 40 Years R/o Village And
Post Jhal Tehsil And District Bemetara (C.G.)
... Petitioner
Versus
1 - Zila Shahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Durg Acting In The Premises Through Its
Chief Executive Officer Durg (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. Sameer Oraon, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocate
SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
07/02/2025
1. Heard Shri Sameer Oraon, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri
Tarun Dansena, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have 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 2 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
SHUBHAM
DEY respondent being illegal, arbitrary and not
Digitally
signed by
sustainable in law in the facts and circumstances
SHUBHAM
DEY
of the case.
10.3 A writ and/or an order in the nature of
appropriate writ do issue directing the
respondent to act in accordance with the order
passed by this Hon'ble Court an making
representation by the petitioner in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
10.4 Cost of the proceedings.
10.5 Any other writs and directions that may be
deemed fit and just in the facts and
circumstances of the case. "
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially vide notice
dated 02/06/2022 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
Dey
