Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shailesh Bindua vs Bank Of India on 27 March, 2023
Author: Chief Justice
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 27 th OF MARCH, 2023
WRIT APPEAL No. 37 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SHAILESH BINDUA, S/O LATE SHRI J.P. BINDUA, AGED
ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION: WORKING AS AN
OFFICER M.M. GRADE SCALE III (UNDER SUSPENSION),
R/O H.NO. A/144 SIDDHARTH LAKE CITY ANAND
NAGAR RAISEN ROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI NARMADA PRASAD CHOUDHARY - ADVOCATE AND OTHERS -
ABSENT)
AND
1. BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ASST. GENERAL
MANAGER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY ZONAL
OFFICE JAIL ROAD ARERA HILLS BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH) 462011
2. BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ASST. GENERAL
MANAGER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
ZONAL OFFICE JABALPUR ZONE RAJESHWAR
BUILDING MIG-15 SHIVNAGAR DAMOH ROAD,
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) 482-002
.....RESPONDENTS
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vishal Mishra passed the following:
ORDER
Appellant Shri Shailesh Bindua is present in the Court. He submits that left
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 4/3/2023
7:20:13 PM
leg of the counsel Shri Narmada Prasad Choudhary is fractured. That his son
Shri Amit Choudhary, who is also an Advocate in the Court is busy to attend
his father.
2. Heard appellant in person.
3. Assailing the order dated 21.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in
disposing off the Writ Petition No.23594 of 2022, the writ petitioner is in
appeal.
4. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was working in the respondent
Bank as Scale-III employee and was posted at Nagda Branch of Madhya
Pradesh. He joined the Bank service on 27.08.2010 as a Probationary Officer.
Subsequently, he was promoted as M.M. Grade-II Officer and thereafter in
Scale-III on 01.06.2019. Lastly, he was posted as Senior Manager, Nagda
Branch, Madhya Pradesh from 17.12.2019 till the filing of petition. He was
placed under suspension vide order dated 22.01.2020. After suspension, the
authorities have failed to issue charge-sheet in 90 days. He preferred an appeal
against his suspension order on the ground that suspension is not permissible
beyond three months in terms of the Circular of the Bank dated 23.10.2020.
The respondents have issued a charge-sheet to the writ petitioner on
02.08.2022, but the attested copy of the documents and statements of witnesses
were not supplied to him. A request was made by the writ petitioner to supply
all the documents to enable him to submit a reply. There was a refusal to supply
the copies of the documents by the respondent Bank vide letter dated
24.08.2022. He again made a representation on 29.08.2022, but instead of
supplying the documents, a departmental enquiry was instituted against him and
an enquiry officer was being appointed. It is his case that in view of the circular
dated 24.07.1980 a time limit has been prescribed for taking a disciplinary
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 4/3/2023
7:20:13 PM
action against an employee of the Bank. The allegation in the charge-sheet is
with respect to a transaction which took place on 16.09.2016 for which a
charge-sheet has been issued on 02.08.2022 i.e. after five years, ten months and
sixteen days, therefore, the same is highly belated and not maintainable.
Therefore, he preferred a writ petition. He has placed reliance upon certain
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of his arguments. The
learned writ court has disposed off the writ petition on the ground that an
appeal against the suspension order is pending consideration and has directed
to take a decision within 60 days on the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner.
As far as issuance of charge-sheet is concerned, the same was dismissed in
view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of
India and another Vs. Kunishetty Satyanarayan reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28.
Therefore, the appeal has been preferred.
5. After arguing at length, writ petitioner has fairly submitted before this
Court that the statements of witnesses have been recorded and now only the
report remains to be submitted. His suspension has already been revoked. It is
argued that as he was not being provided proper opportunity of hearing in the
departmental enquiry coupled with the fact that the charge-sheet has been issued
with a considerable delay, the same is unsustainable. The fact remains that the
proceedings of the departmental enquiry has already been completed. Now, the
enquiry officer has to submit his final report. The writ petitioner has actively
participated in the departmental enquiry. At the fag end of departmental enquiry,
it cannot be argued that he was not being granted ample opportunity of hearing.
Considering the fact that the entire departmental enquiry proceedings are over,
wherein the writ petitioner has actively participated and only final order based
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 4/3/2023
7:20:13 PM
upon the report is to be passed, no relief as claimed can be extended.
6. The law is well settled with respect to the cases of departmental enquiry as
has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunishetty
Satyanarayan (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that
ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice
vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramdesh
Kumar Singh and others JT 1995 (8) SC 331, Special Director and
another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another AIR 2004 SC 1467,
Ulagappa and others vs. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others
2001(10) SCC 639, State of U.P. vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and another
AIR 1987 SC 943 etc.
14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be
entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that
at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere
charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of
action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects
the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person
having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after
considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an
enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or
hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ
lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause
notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only
when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely
affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any
grievance.
15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such
discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by
quashing a show-cause notice or charge sheet.
16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court
can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be
wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly
illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in
such a matter."
7. From the arguments advanced before this Court, it is clear that the final
decision is yet to be taken by the disciplinary authority. It is argued by the writ
petitioner that he is apprehending that the Bank Authorities will make an
Signature Not Verified
adverse order against him to the extent of expelling him from services. The
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 4/3/2023
7:20:13 PM
same is only an apprehension being raised by the writ petitioner. The authorities
are yet to go through the enquiry report and to take a final decision in the
matter. Therefore, the apprehension raised by the writ petitioner cannot be
addressed at this juncture. As far as suspension of the writ petitioner is
concerned, the writ petitioner has fairly submitted that the suspension has
already been revoked. Therefore, the relief which has been claimed as far as
suspension is concerned has rendered infructuous.
8. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the case, no illegality is committed by
the writ court in disposing off the writ petition.
9. The appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
10. Counsels Shri Hobert Pereira and Shri Naman Kumar Upadhyay are
absent today.
11. Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 has filed an application for
adjustment for 27.03.2023 to 01.04.2023. In view of the adjustment note filed
by him, he is adjusted today.
12. In terms of the order dated 24.03.2023 passed in W.P. No.7295 of 2023
(In Reference (Suo Moto) vs. Chairman, State Bar Council of M.P. and others),
all the advocates were directed to attend to the court work forthwith. In spite of
the same, there were certain advocates who appeared on 25.03.2023 and certain
who did not.
13. In view of the fact that there may be a possibility that each and every
advocate may not be aware of the order passed on 24.03.2023, they were
extended the benefit of doubt so far as 25.03.2023 is concerned.
14. O n behalf of appellant Shri Hobert Pereira and Shri Naman Kumar
Upadhyay, Advocates have also entered Vakalat. However, both the counsels,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 4/3/2023
7:20:13 PM
who are also appearing for the appellant are deliberately absent today.
15. Hence, issue a show cause notice against them as to why proceedings for
contempt should not be initiated for disobeying the order dated 24.03.2023
passed in W.P. No.7295 of 2023 and to submit reply by 10.04.2023.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
taj
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 4/3/2023
7:20:13 PM
