[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
R.B.S Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 January, 2026
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5227
1 WP-18590-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 20th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 18590 of 2025
R.B.S THAKUR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anil Lala - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Shikha Sharma - Govt. Advocate for State.
Shri Kapil Duggal - Advocate on caveat.
ORDER
This is the second round of litigation at the instance of the
petitioner. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing
W.P. No.24474/2024, assailing the enquiry report dated 11-06-2024. The
said enquiry report was challenged on the ground that it had been
submitted by an individual, whereas, in a matter pertaining to
defalcation of an amount exceeding Rs.10 lacs, the enquiry was required
to be conducted by a Board constituted in accordance with the
provisions prevailing in the establishment of the M.P. Rajya Sahkari
Bank. The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 31-08-2024,
whereby the impugned orders were set aside and liberty was granted to
the Cadre Committee to initiate an enquiry through a duly constituted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5227
2 WP-18590-2025
Board. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the Board was
constituted vide order dated 25-09-2024. The Board thereafter proceeded
to enquire into the charges. During the pendency of the enquiry, the
petitioner submitted an application seeking permission to engage a
Defence Assistants, one of whom was an Advocate; however, the said
request of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 07-05-2025.
2. Assailing the order dated 25-09-2024 pertaining to the
constitution of the Board, as well as the order dated 07-05-2025 whereby
the petitioner's request for engaging a representative was declined, the
present writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that the constitution of the Board is a nullity, inasmuch as the
same is contrary to the statutory provisions, which stipulate that the
Board is required to be constituted with the General Manager as its
Chairman and two other Members, who should not be below the rank of
Deputy General Manager or Assistant General Manager, and who should
be in the employment of the Bank.
3. In the present case, the Board comprises of three Members, all
of whom have been sent on deputation to the M.P. Rajya Sahkari Bank
Maryadit and are not the original employees of the Bank. On the
contrary, they are employees of the Co-operative Department and,
therefore, the constitution of the Board is asserted to be defective. It is
contended that this objection was raised by the petitioner even during the
course of the enquiry before the Board; however, the same was not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5227
3 WP-18590-2025
considered. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application seeking
permission to engage a Defence Assistant, one of the proposed persons
being a Lawyer. The Board rejected the said request vide the impugned
order contained in Annexure-P/4.
4. The counsel for the petitioner contends that since the
constitution of the Board is contrary to the statutory provisions of the
Rules, which have been brought on record as Annexure-P/1, and the
impugned order is also in direct conflict with the principles of natural
justice, the same deserves to be set aside. It is further submitted that the
alternative remedy available under Section 55 of the M.P. Co-operative
Societies Act, 1960 would be an exercise in futility, inasmuch as the
officers who constituted the Board belong to the Co-operative
Department.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on caveat submits that the
present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Drawing the attention of
this Court to Annexure-R/1, it is submitted that all the Members of the
Board are holding ranks higher than those prescribed under the statutory
Rules and are not subordinate to the concerned employees. It is further
submitted that the Members were sent on deputation way-back in the
year 2023, which is evident from Annexure-R/1. The judgment relied
upon by the petitioner in Subahsh Pachori vs. The State of M.P. and
others (W.P. No.7013/2021, decided on 30-07-2024) is stated to be
distinguishable, inasmuch as in the said case the Members constituting
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5227
4 WP-18590-2025
the Board were junior employees and were not holding the ranks as
prescribed under the statutory Regulations. Hence, it is submitted that
the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. It is further submitted by counsel for the caveator that the
petitioner is a fence-sitter. It is contended that the order relating to the
constitution of the Board was passed in September, 2024, which was not
assailed by the petitioner; rather, the petitioner participated in the
enquiry and sought adjournments on one pretext or the other repeatedly,
as is evident from the order contained in Annexure-P/4. It is submitted
that the objections raised by the petitioner were duly considered and an
order was passed thereon. Thereafter, the present writ petition was filed;
however, no diligent efforts were made by the petitioner for early
disposal of the same.
7. A perusal of the earlier interlocutory order-sheets reflects that
adjournments were sought repeatedly and, in the meantime, the enquiry
stood concluded and the Board has also submitted its enquiry report.
Upon receipt of the enquiry report, notice was issued to the petitioner, to
which the petitioner has submitted his response, and at present only the
final order remains to be passed. Thus, at this stage, no interference is
warranted.
8. No other point has been pressed or argued by the parties.
9. Having considered the submissions advanced by the parties, a
perusal of the record reflects that the petitioner has laid a two-fold
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5227
5 WP-18590-2025
challenge to the impugned order. According to the petitioner, the Board
has not been constituted in accordance with the provisions contained in
the Regulations, which are brought on record as Annexure-P/1.
10. In order to deal with the aforesaid contentions, if the said
Regulations are perused, it would reflect that they provide for the
constitution of a departmental enquiry and, as per the said provisions, the
following are prescribed as the Members of the Board. The relevant
extract of the Regulations is reproduced hereunder:
वभािगीय जांच मंडल मे िन न सद य होगे-
.
पदनाम है िसयत
1 महा बंधक / उप महा बंधक अ य
बक सेवायु जो क उप/सहायक महा बंधक क ण े ी से िन न
2 सद य
ण
े ी का न हो
बक सेवायु जो क सहायक महा बंधक/ पंधक क ण े ी से िन न
3 सद य
णे ी का न हो
11. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions reflects that the General
Manager or the Deputy General Manager is to be the Chairman of the
Board, and the other two Members are required to be of a rank above
Deputy General Manager or Assistant General Manager.
1 2 . As per the return filed by the respondents, all the three
Members of the Board were sent on deputation in the year 2023 by the
Co-operative Department. There is a specific averment in paragraph
No.6 of the return that all the Members are holding posts higher than
those prescribed under the Rules and, therefore, none of the Members is
below the rank of Deputy General Manager or Assistant General
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5227
6 WP-18590-2025
Manager, as mentioned in the aforesaid schedule. So far as the other
objection regarding the petitioner's request to engage a Defence
Assistant is concerned, the same has also lost its efficacy in view of the
subsequent events that have taken place.
13. It is undisputed that the enquiry report has already been
submitted and that the petitioner has also filed his response to the said
enquiry report, and that only the final order in the matter remains to be
passed. Though the petition was filed in the month of May 2025, it is
also undisputed that on two occasions the case was adjourned and, on the
third occasion, it was listed before a Co-ordinate Bench; however, the
Co-ordinate Bench declined to hear the matter and posted it for 26-06-
2025. There is no material on record to indicate as to what steps, if any,
were taken by the petitioner for listing of the matter.
14. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, since much
water has flown after the passing of the impugned order, this Court
refrains from interfering with the same. The petitioner is, however, at
liberty to take all such defences as may be available to him at an
appropriate stage.
15. Resultantly, the writ petition, being devoid of any substratum,
stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5227
7 WP-18590-2025
ac
