Y , / ' WMF IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR(C.G.) WRIT PETITION N032 6 6/2003 // PETITIONER J.K. Shrivastava, S/o. Late Shri A.K. Shn'vastava, Aged about 47 years, PM Operator, UCO Bank, if #1 w‘3‘w ivic Centre Branch, Bhilai, (Under Suspension), R/o. Near Old WEB Office, ‘ r7 . “ r“ Shantinagar, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ”0 VERSUS . %1V‘ \ UCO Bank, RESPONDENTS Head Office, Personnel Department, [E 12 Old Court House Street Kolkata 700001 (W B ) Through Its Dy General Manager (Personnel) {2. Assrstant General Manager (Dlscrphnary l Authonty) UCO Bank Regronal Odice, ’ 97, Anand Nagar, Rajpur (C.G.) H. UCO Sr. Branch Bank, Manager, rl Civic Centre Branch, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI MANDAMUS PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORDERS: l VERSUS RESPONDENTS : UCO Bank & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB’ Hon’hle Shri Satish K. gggjllom '1 J. Present. Shrl Ashish Shnvastava, Advocate for the penuoner Shri U.N.Awasthy, Semor Advocate w1th Shn M.K.Smha, Advocate for the respondents. ORDEMORAL) ’ 1" on 13 day of August 2010) (Passed Heard. 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the show cause notice dated 24.09.2003 (Annexure P/13) whereby the Disciplinary Authority/Assistant General Manager, UCO Bank, Raipur, has proposed to impose pomshment of bringing down the salary of the petitioner to lower stage in the scale of pay by two stages, dtsmissal without notice, removal hom service with superannuation benefits, as would be due otherwise at that stage and without disqualification nom future employment and censure, for the charge No. 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. 2. The facts, in nutshell. as proj ected by the petitioner are that vide order dated 22.08.201 (Annexure P/3) issued by the Disciplinary Authority/Regional Manager, the petitioner was placed under suspension for the alleged fraud committed by the petitioner at Civic Centre Branch, Bhiiai. Later on, a change sheet dated 21.11.2001 (Annexure P/7) was issued by‘the respondent No. 2, the Disciplinary \ xi, Authority. 3L,, .. e :. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISUARH AT BILAS?UR WRIT PETITION No 3266 of2003 2 3. Shri Shn‘vastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Authority has acted as a Disciplinary Authority in this case which is imperssible under the law and the said action ofthe respondents is illegal, arbitraxy and also against the principles of natural justice and the Banking Rules & Regulations. 4. On the other hand, Shri Awasthy, leamed Senior counsel appearing with Shri M.K.Sinha, Advocate for the respondent-Bank submits that the ground taken by the petitioner is contrary to his own submissions as the petitioner himself has tiled documents Annexure P/6, dated 23.06.2000, which is administrative order regarding appointment of disciplinary and appellate authority wherein it is provided that where a post of any of the above said authorities remains vacant and no officiating/acting arrangement has been authorized in respect of the said vacancy, the powers of the incumbent in the post would be exercised by the officer to whom the incumbent should report: but only for the duration of the vacancy remaining unfilled. The powers of higher levels like Appellate Authority would, in such cases, be exercised by correspondingly higher authorities. Thus, when the post of Chief Officer, Regional Ohice, was vacant, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the Assistant General Manager, by issuing charge sheet dated 21.11.2001 to the petitioner and accordingly, the respondent No. 2 issued the show-eause-notice. Thus, the departmental enquiry is well within the four comers of law and is not at all vitiated or suffers hom any illegality. The petitioner : shall have the right to appeal over any order, if any, passed against 4. 3 him by the respondent N0. 2 to the higher authorities, if eventuality arises. Thus, the petition is not maintainable. 5. Perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. On perusal of the administrative order dated 21.06.2000 (Annexure P/6), it is apparent that for the Branches/Ohices/Establishments including Extension Counters headed by Officers in Scale-VI (EL Branches), the Disciplinary Authority would be Chief Manager and the Appellate Authority would be DGM, (Branch Manager) (EL Branch). It is iilrther provided in the said circular that where a post of any of the above-said authorities remains vacant and no olTieiating/acting arrangement has been authorized in respect of the said vacancy, the powers ofthe incumbent in the post would be exercised by the Officer to whom the incumbent should report, but only for the duration ofthe vacancy remaining unfilled. The powers of higher levels like Appellate Authority would, in such cases, be exercised by correspondingly higher authorities. The contention of the petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority was not competent, is rej ected in View ofthe foregoing. The petitioner challenges the legality and validity ofthe notice on the garb of merit i.e. enquiry was not proper, it was perverse. Be that as it may, no final punitive order has been passed before issuing show cause notice to the petitioner with regard to the imposition of punishment. 7. At this stage, no interference is warranted, as no final order has been passed. The petitioner ought to have replied to the show cause notice raising all his grievances and explaining his position, even on merits. " a; w ‘:aagm....,. 4 Thus, at this stage, it is neither expeditious nor necessaly to intetfere with the notice. It is infomed that pursuant to the order dated 14/1 1/2003 of this Court, whereby the respondents were directed not to pass any final order in the matter of disciplinary enquiry until iimher orders. The Disciplinary Authority has not proceeded further to pass any order. Thus, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file his response within a period oftwo weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order and thereatter the Disciplinary Authority atter considering the reply of the petitioner, may pass an appropriate order in accordance with law on its own merit 8. The law is well settled by a series of decisions that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show cause notice, as the show cause notice orccharge sheet does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which ah’ects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. (See Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singhl, Special Director v. Mohd. Gulam Ghousez, Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore3, State of U.P. v: Brahm Datt Sharma" and Union of India and Another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayanai.) 9. In view ofthe foregoing, the petition is dismissed on being premature. No order asto costs. Sd/— Jr Satish K. Agnihotrig . ’ Judge ‘5; Amit/ Ashok ‘ (1996) 1 scc 327 ‘ 2(2004) 3 scc 440 3(2001) 10 scc 639 4 (1987) 2 scc 179 5 (2006) 12 scc 2s ,:...u.4