IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR writ 'Peeicion No.‘§§:_5:§/1995 PETITICN'ER -.. GP. . Jaiswal son of Shri‘J.R. Jaiswal, aged about 35 years, occupation service, Branch Manager Raigarh I<shetriya Gramin Bank Branch Jobi, Distt. Raigarh, M.?. Resi$nt of Village Jobi, Tahsil Kharsia, Distt. Raigarh, MA”. VERSUS RESPONDENTS . . . 1 The Chairman, aigarh Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Raigarh, M.P. R Bank Nirdeshak Mandal Raigarh K’shetriya Gramin Bank, Ra‘igarh, M.P. PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF T% CONSTITUTION OF INDIA DETATLO OF PETITION IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR ‘ SINGLE BENCH: HON’BLE _ SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN $HRIVASTAVA,J. \ WRIT PETITION NO.3585I1 995 Petitioner G. P. Jaiswal ‘ f Versus The Chairman. Raigarh Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Raigarh and another Resgondents POST FOR ORDER ON r9 J’ OCTOBER, 2010 Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ’7" , H HIGH QOURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILAS§UR Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan‘Shrivastava, J. WRIT PETITI0N NO.3585l1 995 ‘ : G. P. Jaiswal Versus The Chairman, Raigarh Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Raigarh and another Petitioner Resgondents Petition under Articie 2261227 of the Constitution of India Presentz- > Shri Ankoosh Mishra, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sumit Verma, counsei for respondents. ORDER (Passed on 4- 11012010) This petition is directed against orde passed by respondent No.1‘, by which, penalty of withhoiding of o with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. The facts which are not disputed are that while the petitione as Branch Manager at Bataikela Bra r dated 22-03-1991 (Annexure P-1) ne increment r was posted nch of the Raigarh Regional Rural Bank, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 17-1 0-1990 ,(Annexure P-2) was caused by the petitioner in disposing off the objections noted in the internal audit forthe year 1987-88 and submitting nnal report an pending. Though various remln (2) alleging that gross delay d even after expiry of the prescribed period, the same was kept ders were given, final report was not submitted and 30(1) of the Raigarh which constitutes misconduct under Clause 17 Kshetriya Gramin Ba show cause notice, the petitioner submitte issued a letter on nk Karmchari Vrand Sewa Viniyam. ln reply to the said d his explanation vide letter dated 31- 10-1990 (Annexure P-3). Thereafter, the respondents again its earlier letter requiring the 26-11-1990 (Annexure P-4) in continuation of ywp‘hw a w» _ x \«G petitioner to submit his reply. The petitioner then submitted reply on 19-1 2-1990 (Annexure P-5). It was followed by another representation dated 02-02-1991 (Annexure P-6) seeking time titl April-1991 to submit the repon and not to pass any order of penalty. Finally, vide order dated 22-03-1991; penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. On an appeal being preferred by the petitioner, the appellate authority passed an order on 04-01-1 992 (Annexure P-8) dismissing the appeal. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner, assailing the correctness and validity of the impugned order, argued that the petitioner had excellent record of service. He submits that the petitioner had explained in his reply the reasons for delay which has not been properly considered. Next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents were obliged to hold proper enquiry as mandated under Regulation 30 of the Service Regulations of the Regional Rural Bank, which has not been done. (4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that on certain allegations of misconduct. an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply. The reply submitted by the petitioner was taken into consideration and after due consideration of the entire material available on record as also the reply of the petitioner, order of imposition of penalty was passed. Learned counsel for the respondents also argued that though the petitioner has challe’hged the order of punishment dated 22-03-1991 passed by the respondent No.1-disciplinary authority. the order passed by the appellate authority i.e.Board of Directors dismissing the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner vide order dated 04-01-1992 (Annexure P-8) has not been challenged, and therefore, the petition is liable to l be dismissed only on this count. (5) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner having explained in his reply the reasons for delay, the same ought to be considered before holding the petitioner guilty and imposing punishment, is liable to be rejected inasmuch as a perusal of the reply submitted by the petitioner on two occasions would show that the petitioner clearly admitted that delay was being caused on his part. The petitioner sought to explain the delay by stating that he is unable to contact the debtors and .on account of their non-availability, he is finding it difficult to submit report in time. However in reply, no specific details have been given by the petitioner. The petitioner has not demonstrated in his reply with reference to each and every internal audit of different years as to why he could not submit his report within time. The reply of the petitioner is vague and without any details of any of the beneficiaries/debtors. In the absence of any specihc reply, the disciplinary authority passed anorder of imposition of'penalty of withholding of increment. Against the said order, a departmental appeal was also preferred by the petitioner and the appellate authority in its order dated 04-01-1992 recorded that delay was caused on the part of the petitioner in submitting reports and reasons assigned by the petitioner were not found satisfactory. (6) Even before this Court, the petitioner could not demonstrate that he could not submit report within the time stipulated under the guidelines for reasons beyond his “control or that the order passed V by the disciplinary authority/appellate authority in any manner suffers from procedural defects or in violation of principles of natural justice or in any manner unfair. Learned counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any perversity. In fact. in the grounds raised in the petition, all that has been stated by the petitioner is that his service record is excellent and before passing order of punishment dated 22-03-1991 (Annexure P-1). no other punishment was imposed. The allegations of malafide Mmggm’gww .w \\ €27 are not suppoded by any material whatsoever. It has aiso been argued that the punishment imposed on the petitioner of withholding increment is a major penaity. which could not be imposed by issuing a show cause notice, but the respondents ought to have issued a charge sheet and conduct a detailed enquiry before imposing such penalty. The respondents in their return have stated that under the staff service regulations, no minOr and major penalty has been classitied. (7) ln the final‘analysis, l do not tind any illegality warranting interference by this Court with the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. Moreover, the order passed by the appellate authority has not been challenged in this petition. (8) In the result, the petition has no merit and is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to cost. Sd/— Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge