Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Harish Sharma vs Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank on 4 November, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:41409-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 833/2025
Harish Sharma S/o Shri Babu Lal Sharma, Aged About 35 Years,
R/o Sankhlon-Ka-Baas, Magra Punjla, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
(Currently Officer Scale-Ii Attached With Regional Office, Sri-
Ganganagar, Rajasthan).
----Appellant
Versus
1. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, (A Joint Venture Of
Government Of India, Rajasthan Govt. And State Bank Of
India) Through General Manager, Head Office, Tulasi
Tower, 9B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
2. Disciplinary Officer, Vigilance And Disciplinary Action
Department Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Head
Office Tulasi Tower, 98 Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur
(Rajasthan).
3. Enquiry Officer, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Head
Office- Tulasi Tower, 98. Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 918/2025
Harish Sharma S/o Shri Babu Lal Sharma, Aged About 35 Years,
R/o Sankhlon-Ka-Bass, Magra Punjla, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
(Currently Officer Scale-Ii Attached With Regional Officer, Sri-
Ganganagar, Rajasthan. )
----Appellant
Versus
1. The Disciplinary Authority, Rajasthan Gramin Bank
(R.m.g.b.), Head Office- Tulsi Tower, 9Th B Road,
Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Enquiry Officer, Rajasthan Gramin Bank (R.m.g.b.), Head
Office- Tulsi Tower, 9Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
3. The Rajasthan Gramin Bank, Head Office, Tulsi Tower, 9Th
B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:22:17 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/11/2025 at 09:50:16 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41409-DB] (2 of 10) [SAW-833/2025]
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Harish Sharma appellant in
person.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Assisted by
Mr. Anil Bhandari
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA
Judgment
Reserved on 09/09/2025
Pronounced on 04/11/2025
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. Two connected appeals have been preferred by the appellant
(writ petitioner) assailing the orders passed by the learned Single
Judge of this Hon'ble Court in separate writ petitions.
1.1. The first appeal, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 833/2025,
has been filed against the order dated 03.04.2025 passed in S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 4810/2025, wherein the petitioner had
challenged the departmental inquiry initiated against him by
memorandum of charges dated 17.05.2023, alleging the same to
be vindictive. The learned Single Judge, while partly allowing the
writ petition, declined to quash the inquiry proceedings but
directed that the petitioner be afforded full opportunity of hearing
and defence, whereafter the proceedings may continue in
accordance with law.
1.2. The second appeal, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 918/2025,
has been preferred against the order dated 28.05.2025 passed in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10975/2025, by which the writ petition
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:22:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41409-DB] (3 of 10) [SAW-833/2025]
filed by the appellant seeking quashing of the departmental
charge-sheets and inquiry proceedings was dismissed with costs of
Rs. 50,000/-.
1.3. Since both the appeals arise from connected disciplinary
proceedings against the appellant and challenge the respective
orders of the learned Single Judge passed in the same context,
they are being decided by this common judgment.
2. The appellant, present in person, was serving as Officer
Scale-II with the respondent-Bank and was subjected to
disciplinary proceedings pursuant to a charge-sheet dated
19.10.2023 alleging multiple acts of misconduct under the
relevant Service Regulations.
2.1. The specific charges against the appellant included:
(i) Non-compliance with directions of superior authorities and
deliberate insubordination in operational and administrative
matters of the branch;
(ii) Failure to maintain proper records and documentation in loan
accounts and sanction files, leading to procedural irregularities;
(iii) Gross negligence in verification of customer credentials and
loan documents, resulting in potential financial exposure to the
Bank;
(iv) Unauthorized correspondence and conduct unbecoming of an
officer, including written communications critical of management;
and
(v) Breach of official decorum by instigating staff and creating
disharmony at the workplace.
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:22:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41409-DB] (4 of 10) [SAW-833/2025]
2.2. On the basis of these allegations, a departmental enquiry
was initiated. The appellant was placed under suspension pending
enquiry. An Enquiry Officer was appointed, who conducted
disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Bank's Service
Regulations. The appellant was granted opportunities to submit
explanations and participate in the proceedings.
2.3. The enquiry, after affording the appellant due opportunity to
participate and defend himself, ultimately concluded against him,
culminating in an adverse finding and subsequent termination
from service.
2.4. The appellant has, however, contended that the entire
proceedings were actuated by mala fides, alleging that he was
being victimized due to his role as an elected office-bearer of the
employees' union and for raising concerns regarding internal
irregularities.
2.5. In W.P. No.4810/2025, the appellant sought a direction for a
Court-monitored enquiry and a stay of disciplinary proceedings.
The learned Single Judge, by order dated 03.04.2025, declined
interference and merely directed the Enquiry Officer to conclude
the enquiry expeditiously and in accordance with law.
2.6. Subsequently, the appellant again approached this Court by
way of W.P. No.10975/2025 challenging the disciplinary
proceedings, alleging denial of documents and bias of the Enquiry
Officer. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 28.05.2025,
dismissed the writ petition with costs of ₹50,000/-, observing that
the repeated filing of petitions at intermediary stages amounted to
abuse of the process of law.
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:22:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41409-DB] (5 of 10) [SAW-833/2025]
3. The appellant, present in person, reiterated that the
disciplinary action was mala fide, motivated by bias and hostility
due to his role as a union representative, and thus, has been
harassed by the respondents for indicating various uncomfortable
conditions in the organization.
3.1. He further contended that material documents were
withheld, the enquiry was prejudged, and the punishment was
disproportionate and vindictive and thus, he sought a judicially
monitored independent enquiry into the allegations and the
disciplinary process itself.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, while
opposing the aforesaid submissions of the appellant, present in
person, submitted that the entire enquiry was conducted strictly in
accordance with the relevant regulations.
4.1. As regards, in particular, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ)
No.918/2025), learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
all the necessary documents have already been provided to the
appellant and earlier orders of the Hon'ble Division Bench have
been duly complied with.
4.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the disciplinary
proceedings had culminated in a final order of termination, and
therefore, any grievance could only be raised before the
competent Forum and not through repetitive writ petitions at
interlocutory stages. He contended that the writ petitions/appeals
seeking a roving enquiry into such matters, may not be
entertained.
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:22:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41409-DB] (6 of 10) [SAW-833/2025]
5. Heard the appellant in person (writ petitioner) and learned
counsel for the respondents, and perused the record of the case
as well as the cases cited at the Bar.
6. This Court finds, upon perusal of the order dated 03.04.2025
passed in W.P. No.4810/2025, that the learned Single Judge
consciously restrianed from interfering in a pending disciplinary
enquiry. The Court merely directed the Enquiry Officer to proceed
expeditiously and in accordance with law, ensuring that the
proceedings were not delayed and that the appellant was not
prejudiced by prolonged uncertainty.
6.1. This Court finds that the approach of the learned Single
Judge is consistent with the settled principle that courts ordinarily
do not interdict disciplinary proceedings at the stage of enquiry or
charge-sheet, since these are internal administrative processes
governed by service regulations. The purpose of judicial review at
such a stage is limited to preventing patent illegality or
jurisdictional error, and not to assess the sufficiency or correctness
of evidence.
6.2. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kunisetty
Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28, has categorically held that
a writ petition challenging a charge-sheet or show cause notice is
not maintainable unless it is issued without jurisdiction or in
violation of statutory rules. Thus, the learned Single Judge rightly
confined the interference to directing expeditious conclusion,
ensuring procedural fairness without derailing the disciplinary
mechanism. The same approach has been rightly adopted in the
present case, and therefore, no further adjudication is warranted.
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:22:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41409-DB] (7 of 10) [SAW-833/2025]
7. With regard to the order dated 28.05.2025 passed in W.P.
No.10975/2025, this Court observes that the second writ petition
was filed by the appellant after the disciplinary enquiry had
already been concluded and a final order of termination was
passed by the competent authority. The learned Single Judge,
therefore, held that the prayer for an independent or parallel
enquiry was misconceived and not maintainable, as the proper
remedy available to the appellant was to challenge the termination
order through a departmental appeal or other appropriate legal
forum.
7.1. The Single Judge further noted that the appellant had
already availed multiple opportunities before the enquiry officer
and had earlier approached this Court in the first writ petition,
which had been decided with specific directions. Having failed to
avail himself of the remedy under the service regulations, the
appellant could not re-approach the Court at a subsequent stage,
seeking to reopen the enquiry itself.
7.2. This Court finds that the learned Single Judge also observed
that the filing of successive petitions at intermediate stages
amounted to abuse of the process of the Court, since the same
issues were being re-agitated without any new cause of action.
Consequently, the imposition of costs of ₹50,000/- was meant to
curb such repetitive and vexatious litigation.
7.2.1. This approach aligns with judicial precedents such as State
of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 and Rajiv
Kumar v. State of U.P., (2017) 8 SCC 791, which emphasize
that multiplicity of proceedings not only clogs the judicial process
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:22:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41409-DB] (8 of 10) [SAW-833/2025]
but also undermines the sanctity and finality of earlier orders. The
learned Single Judge, therefore, acted within jurisdiction and in
accordance with the principles of judicial propriety and discipline.
8. This Court further finds that the appellant has challenged the
charge-sheets and the disciplinary proceedings. The settled legal
position, as reiterated in Union of India v. Upendra Singh
(1994) 3 SCC 357, and State Bank of India v. Hemant
Kumar, (2011) 11 SCC 355, is that interference in disciplinary
proceedings is confined to cases of procedural irregularity, bias, or
jurisdictional error. The Court does not sit as an appellate
authority to re-appreciate evidence or findings recorded by the
Enquiry Officer.
8.1. The appellant has also sought certain documents, while as
per the respondents, all the necessary documents have been
provided to him. This Court finds the earlier order dated
16.07.2025 of the Hon'ble Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal
(Writ) No.918/2025, being relevant for the present purpose, is
reproduced as hereunder:
"Issue notice.
2. Mr. Harish Sharma is present in person.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents appears and
raises a serious objection to the maintainability of Special
Appeal on the ground that similar Special Appeal which
arises out of an order passed by the writ Court, in which
also a challenge was laid to the departmental proceeding
pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 19th October 2023 has
been dismissed.
4. Mr. Anil Bhandari, the learned counsel for the
respondents is seeking four weeks time to file a reply in
the matter.
5. Post this matter after four weeks."
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:22:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41409-DB] (9 of 10) [SAW-833/2025]
8.2. In the present case, no such illegality has been
demonstrated. The appellant has failed to establish that the
proceedings were tainted by bias or that he was denied any
material opportunity of defence. The mere assertion of mala fide,
without cogent evidence, cannot invalidate a disciplinary process
that has otherwise adhered to principles of natural justice.
9. The Court finds that the appellant, appearing in person,
appears to be under a misconception regarding the scope and
operation of law, and has intermittently challenged the disciplinary
proceedings without legal foundation and thus, is intermittently
challenging the disciplinary proceedings without any legal basis.
The repeated writ petitions/appeals at a pre-mature stage without
adhering to the remedies available to the appellant with the
respondent-Bank is not in the interest of the appellant himself.
The repeated litigation is not only hazardous for his own cause,
but also would tantamount to abuse of the process of law.
9.1. The appellant appears to be under a mistaken impression
regarding the scope of Article 226 in service disciplinary matters.
The Court's supervisory jurisdiction is limited and cannot be
invoked to seek a re-investigation into concluded proceedings. His
proper remedy, if aggrieved by the termination, lies before the
departmental appellate authority or in an appropriate proceeding
challenging the final order of punishment.
10. Consequently, the present appeals are dismissed, while
agreeing with the reasons given in the impugned orders dated
03.04.2025 & 28.05.2025 and upholding the same. However,
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:22:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41409-DB] (10 of 10) [SAW-833/2025]
while taking a lenient view, imposition of costs as contained in the
impugned order dated 28.05.2025 passed in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.10975/2025 is interfered with and the said impugned
order dated 28.05.2025 is modified to Rs. 5000/- only. All
pending applications stand disposed of.
(SANDEEP TANEJA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
SKant/-
(Uploaded on 06/11/2025 at 05:22:17 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
