• !)T <^"^'» -zra IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P.FSINO. ^]^1/2007 PETITIONER /: )\ ^^ ...-•^y.. ,.-•' .<i.\>/:L .•-•' ^v-^ /y'%^ v <<v RESPONDENT MITHILESH KUMAR MENON S/o Shri Kapil D_eo Prasad Aged about 45 Yrs. Lead Bank Manager, Presently posted at Dena Bank, Durg, R/o MIG 394, Padamnabhpur, Durg, Distt. - Durg. VERSUS 1. Dena Bank through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, 3rd FIoor, Plot No. C-10, "G" Block, Bandra- Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai (M.S.) 2. ChiefManager, Dena Bank, Regional Office Rukmini Bhawan, Near Jairam Complex, Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WMT, WRITS, ORDER, DIRECTIONS ETC. HI6H COURT OF JU&ICATURE CHHATTISSARH: BILASPUR Sitgle Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. A^iihotri. J, W. P. ts) No. 210 of 2007 Petitioner : AA.ithitedi famar Menon Versus Respondents : Dena Bank through its Chairmon-cum- Oirector ond another c- Shri MflmiA Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. OR&ER (Passed on 18th &ay cf J<awary, 2057) 1. Leamed counsel oppearing for the petitioner submits •that the petitioner was working as Branch Monager, Dena Bank, Sector-10. Bhilai. The Lokoyukt Potice raided the office of the petitioner and found incriminating documents indicoting acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs. 8000/- from one Shri Vinod Naidu for sanctioning and disbursmg an amount of Rs. 1.00 lokh under PMRY. 2, The petitioner was arrested ond charge-sheet was filed. The petitioner was convicted in the tr-ial by 1°^ jAdditional Ssssions Judge, Durg, vide his order dated 28.8.2000. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and half years with pnyment of fine of Rs. 1000, in defautt of payment of fine amount six months additiona! rigorous imprisonment wcss oworded 3. The petitioner fi!ed on appea! before the High Court of AAadhya Prodesh at Jabalpur. being Criminal Appeal No. 2232/2000, which is pending consideration in this Court. The petitioner was gronted bai! by 'rtie 1-ligh v\ c \' a Prodedi on 6.9.2CUO, In the meantime, the Court of respondents-Bank proposed to take discipiinary action. It is pointed out by learned counse! for 1+ie petitioner that the predecessor Cn'se.'f AAflmager vide his letter dated 4.3.2006 (Annexure P/7) expr-essed his oplnion and recommended to maintoin the sta+us quo to the t>y. feneral ttanogsr (HRM>), Parsonnel &epartmant, &sna Corporate C®ntr&, 3 FIoor. Plot No. C-10, 'G' Block, Bandra-Kurta Compiex. Bandra (East), M.umbai-400051. 4. The Chief AAanayr and disciptinar/ au-ttiority, thereafter issued a show-cause notice dated 18.12,2006 (Annexure P/l) asto why the petitioner be not punished with dismissal from the services witiiout notice.with immediate effect. 5. The petitioner has fited this petition impugning the said show-cause notice on the ground ttiat once the predecessor Chief Manager has decided to maintain the status quo, the successor Chief Manager cannot isaje a show-caua notice for taking any penal action against the petitioner. 6. Be that as it may, the impugned show-cause notice cannot be quoshed at •rtiis stage. However, the petitioner is at Siberty to point out atl the facts and submissions made in this Court' to the Chief Monager in his repiy to maintain status quo, till the decision of the High Court, in pending criminal nppeal. This petition is pre-mature as the petitioner has not pointed out aii the relevont facts emd recommendntion of the predecessor aul+iority in response to 1he show-cause, to the discipiinary BnbSu authority. TTiis Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under i4rt'icfe 226 of the Consti'hjtion of India rfiouid refroin from indulging at the stage of tiie show-cause notice when ttie petitioner has not approached tiie concemed authorities, putt'ing forward his case in respon®. 7. Without expressing any opinion on the merit, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Satish K.Agnihotri Judge ^-