Court No. - 43
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5926 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ratandeep Respondent :- Purvanchal Bank, Gorakhpur Through A.G.M. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kshitij Shailendra Counsel for Respondent :- Ganesh Shanker Srivastava
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This writ petition has been filed essentially seeking following three reliefs:-
"(i) to issue a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from proceeding further pursuant to chargesheets issued on 31.10.2017 and 18.2.2019.
(ii) to quash the aforesaid two chargesheets.
(iii) to restrain the respondents from holding any proceeding which may result in any punishment being imposed upon the petitioner. Prayer is also made to decide petitioner's pending appeal dated 9.3.2016, filed against an earlier order of punishment passed on 16.1.2016, and to confine the punishment to the extent specified in such order."
While entertaining the writ petition time was allowed to learned counsel for the Bank to obtain instructions. Today an order passed by the Chairman of the Bank dated 25th April, 2019 has been produced before the Court, whereby the punishment earlier imposed upon the petitioner has been quashed and substituted with lesser punishment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is no longer desirous of challenging the order passed in appeal. Sri Kshitij Shailendra, appearing for the petitioner, however, states that charges levelled against the petitioner in different chargesheets are similar, and therefore, once the appellate authority of the Bank has imposed minor punishment vide its order dated 25th April, 2019, there would be no occasion for the Bank to proceed further with disciplinary enquiry initiated vide two subsequent chargesheets issued to petitioner.
Sri G.S. Srivastava, appearing for the Bank points out that some of the charges levelled are different, and therefore it cannot be said that the order of punishment passed by the appellate authority deals with all the charges levelled against the petitioner.
Having given my anxious consideration to the respective contentions raised, I am of the opinion that the question as to whether disciplinary enquiry proposed against the petitioner vide subsequent chargesheets issued on 31st October, 2017 and 18th February, 2019 are liable to be dropped or continued, is essentially an issue, which is required to be examined by the disciplinary authority, at the first instance. So far as the order passed in appeal is concerned, there is no challenge laid to it by the petitioner.
In that view of the matter, no further orders are required to be passed in this matter, except to state that it shall be open for the petitioner to raise his objection, as is raised before this Court, with regard to continuance of disciplinary action initiated by chargesheets dated 31.10.2017 and 18.2.2019, on the ground that charges in that regard have already been investigated and appropriately dealt with in disciplinary proceedings, and that such contention of petitioner would be examined by the disciplinary authority, by passing a reasoned order, expeditiously.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 Anil