Dinbandhu Patel vs Zila Shahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 2252 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Dinbandhu Patel vs Zila Shahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, ... on 4 March, 2025

                                                       1/4




        Digitally
        signed by

                                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
        RAVI
RAVI    SHANKAR
SHANKAR MANDAVI
MANDAVI Date:
        2025.03.09
        16:04:57
        +0530


                                                  Order Sheet

                                             WPS No. 1348 of 2025
                       DINBANDHU PATEL versus ZILA SHAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK
                                         MARYADIT, Durg


                     04/03/2025         Mr. Karunendra Narayan Singh, Advocate appears on

                                  behalf of Mr. B.P. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner.

                                        Mr. Manish Upadhyay, counsels for the respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in an

identical petition notices were issued in the matter of

likewise employee in which proposed punishment was

stated for recovery of amount alongwith some minor

punishment and also to lodge FIR against the delinquent

employee. In the first round of litigation, learned counsel for

the petitioner prays that he may be allowed to withdraw this

petition so that he may apprise the authorities to pass

appropriate orders because, the impugned order has been

passed for removal from service, whereas in the proposed

punishment it was in respect of lodging of FIR with minor

punishment.

Accordingly, the petitioner in the first round was

allowed to make a representation and in turn the authorities

are directed to decide the representation made by the

petitioner.

In the later round, when the representation was

rejected by the respondent authorities, confirming the order

of removal from service, the petitioner approached this

Court, in which in a likewise petition this Court has passed

order staying the effect and operation of the impugned order

of removal.

In the present case, the proposed punishment has not

been made by the authorities, but in the notice the

respondents have stated that they will lodge an FIR and

appropriate action be taken against the petitioner, in case

the petitioner will not deposit the amount to the tune of

Rs.16,17,269/- and Rs.32,53,971/- total amounting to

Rs.48,71,220/-. As such, the petitioner is praying that the

impugned order may be stayed which has been passed in

the earlier petition may be granted in this petition also and

all the petitions may be heard together.

Relying on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the matter of Isolators & Isolators v. M.P.

Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd reported in (2023)

8 SCC 607 and in the matter of State of M.P. v. Sanjay

Nagayach reported in (2013) 7 SCC 25, learned counsel for

the petitioner prays for grant of interim relief in the present

petition.

Learned counsel for the respondents objected the

argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner

and submitted that the petition itself is not maintainable. The

petitioner has to avail alternative statutory remedy available

under Section 55(2) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative

Societies Act, 1960, which the petitioner has not availed and

has directly filed this petition, as such, the petition is not

maintainable. It was argued that in the present case, no

proposed punishment was stated by the respondent

authorities and it was also argued that in the rules itself it is

mentioned about recovery from the persons, if there is any

embezzlement has been done.

On this ground, the learned counsels for the

respondent objected this petition and further objected grant

of any interim relief in favour of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance

upon judgments passed by the coordinate bench in WPS

No.6658 of 2018, WPS No.7898 of 2022, WPS No.7247 of

2009 and also judgment passed by the Division Bench of

this Court in WA No.73 of 2025. He submits that no case is

made out for grant of interim relief.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case

and further considering the fact that in the earlier bunch of

the petitions, interim order has been passed, the effect and

operation of the impugned order is stayed till next date of

hearing.

The petitioner is directed to supply the case number of

the connected matters and with the consent of the parties,

the matter is directed to be listed on 26th of March, 2025 for

analogous hearing.

Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

Ravi Mandavi