Ravinder Kumar Jain vs Punjab National Bank
2011 Latest Caselaw 2568 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Date of decision: 12th May, 2011.

+                                 W.P.(C) 1801/2011

%        RAVINDER KUMAR JAIN                     ..... Petitioner
                     Through: Ms. Alpana Poddar & Mr. K.G.
                              Mishra, Advocates.

                                   Versus

         PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK                     ..... Respondent
                     Through: Mr. V.K. Rao, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
                              Vaibhav Kalra, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may              No
         be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?             No

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported            No
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

CM No.6789/2011 (of the petitioner for further amendment)

Allowed.

The amended writ petition is taken on record.

W.P.(C) No.1801/2011 & CM No.3819/2011 (for stay)

1. The writ petition impugns the report dated 23 rd September, 2008

submitted by the Inquiry Officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority

of the respondent Bank to the said Disciplinary Authority.

2. On enquiry it is informed that the Disciplinary Authority has not

taken any action on the said inquiry report as yet.

3. It has been inquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to how the

writ petition is maintainable at this stage. This Court is of the opinion that

challenge cannot ordinarily be permitted at successive stages of a

transaction, inasmuch as if the same is permitted, the same would be the

impediment in completion of the transaction. The disciplinary proceedings

initiated against the petitioner would culminate in the order of the

Disciplinary Authority and the challenge if any required has to be made to

the order of the Disciplinary Authority only and not at each and every

stage of the disciplinary proceedings.

4. The senior counsel for the respondent Bank appearing on advance

notice also states that if at all the Disciplinary Authority takes any

disciplinary action against the petitioner, the petitioner shall also have the

remedies of departmental appeal in accordance with the Rules and

Regulations of the respondent Bank and if the writ petition is entertained at

this stage, the said procedure prescribed would also be violated.

5. The counsel for the petitioner has however contended that the

petitioner had earlier preferred a writ petition seeking promotion and

which was allowed and the Intra Court Appeal and the SLP against which

judgment were also dismissed. It is contended that the respondent Bank

has however till date not complied with the directions in the earlier writ

petition to promote the petitioner and which have attained finality and in

which regard a contempt petition preferred by the petitioner is also

pending. It is contended that if the respondent Bank were to comply with

the said directions and promote the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer as well

the Disciplinary Authority would be junior to the petitioner and the inquiry

report and the disciplinary action would be vitiated for the said reason.

6. Needless to state that the senior counsel for the respondent Bank

controverts.

7. Be that as it may, it is not felt expedient to go into the said question.

The rights of the petitioner under the orders in the earlier proceedings are

separate and distinct from the present disciplinary action and it will be

open to the petitioner to take the pleas as urged before this Court in the

disciplinary proceedings and the writ petition cannot be entertained at this

stage and which would have the result of staying the action to be taken by

the Disciplinary Authority and in which regard interim relief has also been

claimed by the petitioner.

8. The writ petition is therefore dismissed as not maintainable with the

clarification however that the dismissal will not come in the way of the

petitioner urging the grounds taken herein before all foras where the

petitioner may be so entitled. No order as to costs.

9. The counsel for the petitioner at this stage states that the petitioner

has not replied to the notice issued by the Disciplinary Authority on the

inquiry report till now and seeks extension of time for submitting a reply

thereto. It is stated that there was a stay of further action in the

disciplinary proceedings in the contempt proceedings and after the said

stay was vacated, the petitioner was permitted to prefer this writ petition

within two weeks.

10. The senior counsel for the respondent Bank states that he has no

instructions in this regard and also opposes the said request.

11. However in the facts and on the statement of the counsel for the

petitioner that in pursuance to the said notice no order has been served on

the petitioner till now, it is deemed expedient to extend the time for the

petitioner to reply to the notice. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be

entitled to submit a reply to the notice on or before 30 th May, 2011.

CM No.6790/2011 (for exemption) Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

Copy of this order be given Dasti.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) MAY12, 2011/bs