Chattisgarh High Court
Derharam Joshi vs Zila Shahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit on 6 March, 2025
1/4
Digitally
VISHAKHA signed by
BEOHAR VISHAKHA
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
BEOHAR
WPS No. 1513 of 2025
Derharam Joshi Versus Zila Shahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit
Order Sheet
06/03/2025 Mr. M.L. Saket, Counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Manish Upadhya, Counsel 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.15,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/-, total
amounting to Rs.25,00,000/-. 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.
Mr. Manish Upadhyay 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. He
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
Vishakha
