High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 09 CHH CK 0234

Sarita Bai vs Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank And Ors

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 13 September 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
P. Sam Koshy, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (S) No. 6036 Of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 339 words

P. Sam Koshy, J

1.

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 3.8.2018, Annexure P-1. The impugned order is the second show cause notice issued by

the respondent-bank on the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner.

2.

The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 13.12.2016 and thereafter a departmental enquiry was conducted and after the enquiry report has

been submitted by the enquiry officer, the present show cause notice has been issued before the final order is passed by the disciplinary authority.

3.

It is a settled position of law that the High Court in its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not substitute itself

as an disciplinary authority and would not threadbare go into the proceeding of the enquiry or would not conduct a roving enquiry to ascertain whether

the charges have been established or not or whether the delinquent employee has been granted an opportunity of hearing or not. The second show

cause notice is issued just before the disciplinary authority takes a final decision on the enquiry proceeding. All the contentions that have been raised

by the petitioner are facts and grounds which the petitioner is supposed to raise in the reply to the show cause notice. On a detailed reply being given

by the petitioner/delinquent employee, the disciplinary authority before passing a final order is incumbent to consider the contentions raised in his

representation and thereafter pass a suitable order. This Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review would not substitute as a disciplinary

authority at this stage to consider all these contentions which the petitioner has raised.

4.

Reserving the right of the petitioner to file a detailed reply to the show cause notice or filing a representation for ventilating his grievances by

approaching the higher authorities in the department by way of a representation, the present writ petition in its present form is not sustainable. and the

same deserves to be disposed of.

5.

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.