Shesh Narayan Tondre vs Zila Shahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit
2025 Latest Caselaw 1514 Chatt

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1514 Chatt
Judgement Date : 29 January, 2025

Chattisgarh High Court

Shesh Narayan Tondre vs Zila Shahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit on 29 January, 2025

                                                                   1




                                                                                               2025:CGHC:5129
                                                                                                     NAFR
           Digitally signed

                                      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
           by GOURI
           MUDALIAR
GOURI
           Date:
MUDALIAR   2025.01.29
           14:33:48
           +0530

                                                        WPS No. 787 of 2025


                     Shesh Narayan Tondre S/o Shri Sahdev Tondre Aged About 38 Years
                     Resident Of Ward No. 10, Kobiya Near Office Of Janpad Panchayat,
                     Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh
                                                                                                ... Petitioner


                                                                versus


                     Zila Shahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Durg Acting In The Premises Through
                     Its Chief Executive Officer, Durg.
                                                                                        ... Respondent

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Shri B.P. Sharma and Ms. Anuja Sharma, Advocates.

For Respondent : Shri Manish Upadhyay, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 29/01/2025

1. Heard Shri B.P. Sharma and Ms. Anuja Sharma, learned counsel for

petitioner and Shri Manish Upadhyay, learned counsel for the

respondent who is appearing on advance copy.

2. Instant petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

"(i)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.

(ii)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.

(iii)Cost of the proceedings.

(iv)Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of case."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially vide notice

dated 2/06/2022 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.