W.P.(C) 1801/2011 Page 1 of 5 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 12th May, 2011. + W.P.(C) 1801/2011 % RAVINDER KUMAR JAIN ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Alpana Poddar & Mr. K.G. Mishra, Advocates. Versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ..... Respondent Through: Mr. V.K. Rao, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vaibhav Kalra, Adv. CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest? RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. CM No.6789/2011 (of the petitioner for further amendment) Allowed. The amended writ petition is taken on record. W.P.(C) 1801/2011 Page 2 of 5 W.P.(C) No.1801/2011 & CM No.3819/2011 (for stay) 1. The writ petition impugns the report dated 23rd September, 2008 submitted by the Inquiry Officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent Bank to the said Disciplinary Authority. 2. On enquiry it is informed that the Disciplinary Authority has not taken any action on the said inquiry report as yet. 3. It has been inquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to how the writ petition is maintainable at this stage. This Court is of the opinion that challenge cannot ordinarily be permitted at successive stages of a transaction, inasmuch as if the same is permitted, the same would be the impediment in completion of the transaction. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner would culminate in the order of the Disciplinary Authority and the challenge if any required has to be made to the order of the Disciplinary Authority only and not at each and every stage of the disciplinary proceedings. 4. The senior counsel for the respondent Bank appearing on advance W.P.(C) 1801/2011 Page 3 of 5 notice also states that if at all the Disciplinary Authority takes any disciplinary action against the petitioner, the petitioner shall also have the remedies of departmental appeal in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the respondent Bank and if the writ petition is entertained at this stage, the said procedure prescribed would also be violated. 5. The counsel for the petitioner has however contended that the petitioner had earlier preferred a writ petition seeking promotion and which was allowed and the Intra Court Appeal and the SLP against which judgment were also dismissed. It is contended that the respondent Bank has however till date not complied with the directions in the earlier writ petition to promote the petitioner and which have attained finality and in which regard a contempt petition preferred by the petitioner is also pending. It is contended that if the respondent Bank were to comply with the said directions and promote the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer as well the Disciplinary Authority would be junior to the petitioner and the inquiry report and the disciplinary action would be vitiated for the said reason. 6. Needless to state that the senior counsel for the respondent Bank W.P.(C) 1801/2011 Page 4 of 5 controverts. 7. Be that as it may, it is not felt expedient to go into the said question. The rights of the petitioner under the orders in the earlier proceedings are separate and distinct from the present disciplinary action and it will be open to the petitioner to take the pleas as urged before this Court in the disciplinary proceedings and the writ petition cannot be entertained at this stage and which would have the result of staying the action to be taken by the Disciplinary Authority and in which regard interim relief has also been claimed by the petitioner. 8. The writ petition is therefore dismissed as not maintainable with the clarification however that the dismissal will not come in the way of the petitioner urging the grounds taken herein before all foras where the petitioner may be so entitled. No order as to costs. 9. The counsel for the petitioner at this stage states that the petitioner has not replied to the notice issued by the Disciplinary Authority on the inquiry report till now and seeks extension of time for submitting a reply W.P.(C) 1801/2011 Page 5 of 5 thereto. It is stated that there was a stay of further action in the disciplinary proceedings in the contempt proceedings and after the said stay was vacated, the petitioner was permitted to prefer this writ petition within two weeks. 10. The senior counsel for the respondent Bank states that he has no instructions in this regard and also opposes the said request. 11. However in the facts and on the statement of the counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance to the said notice no order has been served on the petitioner till now, it is deemed expedient to extend the time for the petitioner to reply to the notice. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be entitled to submit a reply to the notice on or before 30th May, 2011. CM No.6790/2011 (for exemption) Allowed, subject to just exceptions. Copy of this order be given Dasti. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) MAY12, 2011/bs