Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Harish Sharma vs Rajasthan Marudhara Garmin Bank on 5 March, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:9293-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 55/2025
Harish Sharma S/o Babu Lal Sharma, Aged About 35 Years,
Magra Punjla, Jodhpur, At Present Address And Working As
Officer Scale Ii, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Regional
Business Office, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar
(Rajasthan)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, (A Joint Venture Of
Government Of India, Rajasthan Govt. State Of Bank Of
India) Through General Manager, Head Office, Tulasi
Tower, 9B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
2. Disciplinary Officer, Vigilance Disciplinary Action
Department Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Head
Office Tulasi Tower, 9B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur
(Rajasthan)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Harish Sharma appellant in
person.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Bhandari
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
Judgment
Reserved on 06/02/2025
Pronounced on 05/03/2025
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. This Special Appeal has been preferred against the order
dated 11.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this
Hon'ble Court in pending S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17500/2024,
whereby Stay Application No.17582/2024 has been dismissed.
[2025:RJ-JD:9293-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-55/2025]
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant (writ petitioner)
was served a charge-sheet on 19.06.2024, reply whereto was filed
by the appellant on 07.08.2024. The appellant thereafter, sought
certain documents from the respondents. As per the appellant
however, without affording proper opportunity of hearing, a
punishment of stoppage of Annual Grade Increments for three
consecutive terms for a period of two years, with non-cumulative
effect, was imposed upon the appellant.
3. The appellant present in person submitted that vide the
impugned order dated 11.11.2024 which was not a speaking
order, the stay application has been summarily and cursorily
dismissed.
3.1. It was further submitted by the appellant that the
respondents i.e., Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank and the
Disciplinary Officer have failed to adhere to the basic parameters
of natural justice, and thus, are misleading the Court regarding
the charge-sheet and the punishment in question.
3.2. It was also submitted that the punishment given is on a
much higher side and impact thereof will be for lifelong and thus,
the same ought to be interfered with.
4. Mr. Anil Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made by
the appellant present in person, supported the impugned order.
5. After hearing the appellant present in person and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents as well as
perusing the record of the case, this Court finds the impugned
[2025:RJ-JD:9293-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-55/2025]
order in the writ petition, whereby punishment in question has
been imposed upon the appellant is an order, which can be
redressed at any stage by giving appropriate retrospective
benefits to the appellant, if he is found entitled finally. The refusal
as made by the learned Single Judge to consider the stay
application, by rejecting the same vide the impugned order, does
not prejudice the case of the appellant. The appellant can lay his
facts and grounds at length in the pending writ petition, and after
due assistance from both the sides, the learned Single Judge shall
proceed to pass final orders, which will completely adjudicate
upon the dispute in question.
6. In the given factual matrix, the rejection of the stay
application did not cause any such grave prejudice to the
appellant, which cannot be undone or redressed at the time of
final hearing of the writ petition, and has neither caused any kind
of immediate loss nor any irreparable loss to the appellant, so as
to warrant any interference by this Court in the impugned order
passed by the learned Single Judge, at this stage.
7. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. However,
the appellant as well as the respondents shall be at liberty to raise
all their legal issues before the learned Single Judge in the
pending writ petition.
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
