Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Aadesh Kumar Prajapat vs The Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank ... on 21 February, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:10586]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17985/2024
Aadesh Kumar Prajapat S/o Shri Om Prakash Prajapat, Aged
About 34 Years, R/o Ward No. 03, Reengan, Tehsil- Ladnun,
District- Nagaur, (Hall Ex-Officer Scale-I Id No. 5098, Rajasthan
Marudhara Gramin Bank, Regional Business Office, Pali-I,
Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (R.m.g.b.),
Through Its Chairman, Head Office- Tulsi Tower, 9Th B
Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. The Chairman (Disciplinary Authority), Rajasthan
Marudhara Gramin Bank (R.m.g.b.), Head Office- Tulsi
Tower, 9Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3. The Chief General Manager (Vigilance), Rajasthan
Marudhara Gramin Bank (R.m.g.b.), Head Office- Tulsi
Tower, 9Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. Shri Mukesh Bhartiya, Hall Chairman, Rajasthan
Marudhara Gramin Bank (R.m.g.b.), Head Office- Tulsi
Tower, 9Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
5. Shri Gyanendra Kumar Jain, Former Chairman, Rajasthan
Marudhara Gramin Bank (R.m.g.b.) Presently Residing At
Flat No. 5-02, Manglam Aananda Apartments, Sangner,
Jaipur, Rajasthan Mobile No. 966511117.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.P. Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Bhandari
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
21/02/2025
1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged
the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the Disciplinary Authority,
whereby he has been proposed to be removed from his services.
[2025:RJ-JD:10586] (2 of 4) [CW-17985/2024]
So also, the final order dated 01.10.2024, whereby he has been
punished with penalty of removal from services.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance
that inspite of the fact that after conducting inquiry, the Inquiry
Officer had found four charges out of eight charges to be proved
against the petitioner and remaining four charges to be partly
proved, the disciplinary authority has not only found all the
charges to be proved but has also passed the order of removal
from the services.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that while giving
notice of proposed punishment and supplying copy of the inquiry
report it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to give
notice of disagreement if he wanted to disagree with the report of
the inquiry officer. It was argued that in absence of any notice of
disagreement, the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority
against the petitioner qua all the eight charges, is illegal and
contrary to law. He argued that the impugned order is vitiated for
want of principles of natural justice.
4. In support of such contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Malhotra vs. Punjab
National Bank, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 251 and in the case of
Punjab National Bank & Ors. vs. K.K. Verma reported in AIR
2011 SC 120.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank on the other hand
submitted that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of S.P. Malhotra (supra) is distinguishable, inasmuch as the
regulations applicable in the case of K.K. Verma (supra) provided
[2025:RJ-JD:10586] (3 of 4) [CW-17985/2024]
for issuance of notice of disagreement whereas, in the instant
case, there is no such provision for issuing of notice of
disagreement.
6. He nevertheless submitted that prior to passing of the
impugned order dated 01.10.2024, a notice of proposed penalty
was issued on 25.09.224, which clearly stipulated that the
petitioner would be penalized with an order of removal. It is
further submitted that in the facts of the case, when the petitioner
is alleged of grave financial irregularities, no indulgence is
warranted.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
8. Maybe, the contention raised by learned counsel for the
respondent-Bank is correct, if the regulations are read in abstract
that notice of disagreement is not necessary. But according to this
Court, principles of natural justice are wide enough and enjoins
upon the disciplinary authority an obligation to give notice of
disagreement, if he disagrees with the findings recorded by the
inquiry officer. Admittedly, no notice of disagreement was given by
the Disciplinary Authority prior to passing the order impugned.
9. The impugned order dated 25.09.2024 so also the order
dated 01.10.2024 are therefore, quashed and set aside.
10. The petitioner shall file a reply/representation before the
disciplinary authority.
11. Considering the reply/representation, respondent-bank shall
send a notice to the petitioner indicating therein, the proposed
disagreement. While sending the notice to the petitioner,
respondent-bank shall also hand over a copy thereof to its
[2025:RJ-JD:10586] (4 of 4) [CW-17985/2024]
counsel, Mr. Anil Bhandari who in turn shall transmit the same to
Mr. S.P. Sharma electronically or physically.
12. On receipt of the notice by the petitioner or by Mr. Sharma,
learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner shall have to file
representation/reply within ten days, in addition to what has
already been submitted by him.
13. On receipt of such reply/representation, the disciplinary
authority shall consider the same in accordance with law without
being prejudiced by the fact that he has earlier passed an order of
punishment. The needful be done within a period of four weeks.
14. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is
disposed of.
15. Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
84-Taruna/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
