HDFC Bank Ltd. & Others vs Dimple Sharma

Sureshwar Thakur, J

This Court had, on 28.8.2020, proceeded to make the hereinafter extracted orders, upon, CWP No. 1712, of, 2020:­

"Heard. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he has an alternative statutory remedy to make a challenge against the impugned order, hence, he be permitted to avail the afore statutory remedy. He has further submitted that he be permitted to withdraw the extant petition. Permission granted. Consequently, the extant petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the writ petitionermay avail the alternative statutory remedy for challenging the impugned order. The Appellate Authority concerned, is, directed to, upon its being beset with the statutory appeal, decide it within six weeks from its receipt. It is also made clear that till the petitioner makes a motion before the Appellate Authority concerned, the respondents shall not enforce the impugned annexure. All pending applications also stand disposed of. "

However, prior to making of the afore orders, this Bench had also, on 10.6.2020, upon, CMP No. 4494 of 2020 hence made the hereinafter extracted orders:­

"Notice/reply in the aforesaid terms. In the larger interest of justice, if petitioner is not served with the impugned Annexure, and, also, if it has not been given the fullest effect, thereupon, the respondents are restrained, till further orders, from giving effect to the impugned Annexure, and, also from dispensing with the services, of, the petitioner."

A reading of the afore orders, make a palpable disclosure, that this Bench, was constrained to restrain/stay the operation of the impugned order, hence, dispensing with the service(s) of the writ petitioner, however, with a rider qua it not being thereat given the fullest effect.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, meted to him, by the latter, had on 28.8.2020, made a prayer that the writ petitioner, wants to avail, the alternative statutory remedy , for, casting a challenge against the impugned order, and, upon, his afore submission, he, was permitted to withdraw the writ petition. Nonetheless, despite, the order, of, termination being prayed to be set aside, and, also the consequential relief, for, reinstatement of the petitioner's service, hence, becoming subsumed, within, the orders, made by this Court, on 28.8.2020, rather, this Court proceeded to bonafidely, make a direction, that, till the preferment, of, the statutory appeal, and, its being decided, hence thereupto the respondents not enforcing the impugned Annexure. Since it is submitted by the learned counsel for the review petitioners, that the order, has already taken effect, and, also in case the afore sentence occurring, in, the order, made by this Court, on 28.8.2020, is, permitted to remain intact, (i) thereupon all the effects, of, dismissal, of, the writ petition, as withdrawn, for hence enabling the writ petitioner, to, avail the statutory remedy, inasmuch as, all the relief(s) canvassed therein, inclusive, of, staying the operation, of, the impugned order, of, termination, and, consequential therewith relief, of, reinstatement in service, of, the petitioner, becoming obviously awashed, and, entailing unbefitting consequences. Consequently, the afore bonafide mistake, is, rectified, and, the review petitioners, may receive, the statutory appeal, preferred therebefore, by the writ petitioner, and, thereafter shall proceed to decide the same, within a period of twelve weeks, from its receipt, and, after affording, an, opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner.

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the operation, of, the impugned termination order, shall not remain stayed, either till the institution of the statutory appeal, preferred by the writ petitioner, and, nor upto its decision.

In view of the above observations, the instant review petition is disposed of. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.