Chattisgarh High Court
Hiradhar Maitri vs Zila Shahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit on 30 January, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:5595
Digitally
signed by
RAVI
NAFR
RAVI SHANKAR
SHANKAR MANDAVI
MANDAVI Date:
2025.02.01
12:19:46
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 884 of 2025
1 - Hiradhar Maitri S/o Late Salik Ram Maitri Aged About 57 Years
Resident Of Ward No. 11, Noorani Chowk, Than Khamariya, 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 : Mr. Anuja Sharma, Advocate appears on
behalf of Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Upadhyay
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
30/01/2025
1. Heard Mr. 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. Instant petition has been filed seeking 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 and
circumstances of case."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially vide notice
dated 26.05.2022 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 five days
and in turn the authorities are directed to decide the same within
ten days.
7. It is made clear that the petition was not heard on merits.
8. Accordingly, with this observation/s and direction/s this petition is
disposed of.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Ravi Mandavi
