^?..!^/1;^? ^ .SE' if't. >•••» s'B.i.'i'rf-" / ^^-\ IN THE HON'BLE MGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.E^SINo. 165'^- /2Q11 PETITIONER ^ : Jamadar Singh, S/o. late Shri Gorelal Singh, Aged about 45 years, presently working on the post of cashier, Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Branch, Sonhat, Distt. Korea (C.G.) RESPONDENTS .\..^y ^^ ^y'^^v '' '""/<'47 /a- ^' VERSUS ^l] Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Through the President/Appellate Authority, Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Sangam Gali, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 2] General Manager/ Admmistrative Officer, Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Head Qffice Sangam Gali Ambikpur Distt. Surguja (C.G.) ^-3] Enquiry Officer/Branch Manager, Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank,Branch Kumda, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 4] Branch Manager, Surguja Kshetaiya Grainin Bank, Braach Kelhari, Distt. Korea(C.G.) WRIT PETmON UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE r'ONSTITUTION OF ESDIA 4] PARTICULARSOF THE PETITIONER (S); A~s stated above in the cause title. ^naissIs^^ ,^fc.. '^ PETITIONER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1657 OF 2011_ Jamadar Singh Versus RESPQNDENTS Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Others (Writ Petition underArticles 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri A.N. Pandey, counsel for the petitioner. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on this 7th day ofApril, 2011) 1. Heard. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 30-10-2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by the appellate authority of Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank(for short "the respondent Bank"). 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was posted in the year 2006 as Clerk in the respondent Bank. On 24-10-2006, the petitioner, while working as in-charge of Kelhari branch due to declaration of holiday as per the T.V. clippings on the eve of Id-UI-Fitra, closed the bank on 24-10-2006 whereas, the head office declared the holiday on 25-10-2006. Therefore, on the basis of unauthorized absence of the petitioner and closing of the branch on 24-10-2006, the respondent authorities issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice. Thereafter, the departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and charge-sheet dated 9-11-2006 (Annexure ~P/2) was issued to the petitioner. The charges read as under:- "-1- ~E[S TTFTT 'H^T fe sff\ uf^|c;|<! f^J?, ;/'@TuTNt R^fcb-24.10.06 ^T Siq^ ?IR3T cpdsj ^ R^TT T^ ^m/^lf^f?! SFf^r^T WT ^ argiTRaRT ^i <ft ui*iic;i'< f^i?, RiRch/ yuii-cjt ?PT q? q?T4 ^Ur iii41"i tq? (sriSicpr^ T?cr ^pNrtt) ^cir 2000 q?t eTRT 22 c^ y|c|6|l'?l' cpT dpcl'kl'l ?t^ c^ q^RCT 2- 'q? W TTOT f^; -ift smrerc s, RiRcb/^ 5-24.10.06 - 'EPT arq^ •?TRgT ^foIT ^ f^IT -l^ ^RT/1jc[f^f?r 3)'1lfE)c|id WT ^ SrgqRefcT ^g^ VRV] ^RT f^WT tpr 51T@T ir tf^T cpTlf ^T ^gir | ^ 's;. .^^.. ^ VS:L"% s Gowri •ift uf^ltil'i f^I?, fNircp/^uTT^t W 'q? ^prf te ftuf ^ f^r?Rr ^ dcii'j.'Miii wryiiT ^Sw -TpfTtur tcp (3lfErc|}F$t T?cT ch4^1'S1) ^c[T f?rf^PR 2000 ^f E1NT 19 c^ yiciiiii'il' ^fi] -dw\v'i ~g^ c^ cpRUT cb<|T||<; t| 3- 'SI? W TT;n 1^5 <ft u1*1|c;|^i 1^, f^rfETcf;/^ ST?T f^TTcf;- 23.10.06 ^\ ~^\SJ 5.30 'S^t ?TT@T chl'yld'y •TEPT q?t 'EITfiFTT ^?raT?!p <ft WT^T ?|7t 3f'1lfE|i^d ^ ^l ^ft u)*iic;i<i 'Ri?, fN^/^un^Tt c)?T Tf? cCT4 cbcfc^li 'E^ ffRr dl4<ic||^| iR^ d(;lj,>HI^ ^ITi^TT St-^tq -TP'ftur tcp (sifSR^t ^ cti4'tii'S1) ^RT f?ff?rm 2000 ^\ EIRT 17 'c^ yicit)i-ff c^ 'dwi'ki'i ?f?r c^ cpRur cbciiTii<i 11" The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 13-11-2006 (Annexure P/3) admitting the fact that he closed the Bank and remained absent, though there was no proper formal order from the Bank to observe holding on 24-10-2006. After completion of enquiry, the enquiry officersubmitted his report and on the basis of enquiry report, by order dated 17-07-2010 (Annexure P/4) punishment was imposed upon the petitioner by reduction of one increment of the petitionerfrom the pay scale for a period of one year. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The said appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in its letter and spirit. Thus, this petition. I have perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. It is evident that before the appellate authority the petitioner has failed to prove his case. The aforesaid facts have not been denied by the petitioner even before this Court. It is also not a case of no evidence or perversity in the finding recorded by the enquiry authority, as the same was based on admission of the charges by the petitioner. While dismissing the appeal of the petitioner the appellate authority has considered all the aspects of the matter in its true perspective. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the appellate authority and the same does not warrant any interference of this Court. In the result, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. '——— Sd/- SatiShK. AgBihotri ^' .^^. ^^w"s*<ys'.... 3