.x L y m \m‘VR‘vxvw-w h wwvw a u s ( ‘6 K ‘ouaamuWuaoo/ MFMMMMMOMM FEi- ‘ sx:zt.Q u»m r - A'Y:R‘Uoc anocoonanncccacnooauomcmmocnoa naanaonaa“ounoaoan ' cncoa‘mocnnna IN THE HEGH CQURT OF GHHATTE$GARH AT BILA$PUR Writ Petion N335 2004 it al { PETITIONER - Ramayan Sigh Sari} n S] o Late Shri Aghan Singh Sori, agetl abaut ? years, Occupation- Service, Worldng as Branch Manager (Durg m Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank, Branch —- Gotatula), RI o Kai1a$ Nagar, Ward o. 1, Kawardha, District — Kahrdham, Kawardha (C.G.)‘ Versus— : l. Durg —Rajrxgaan Giramin Ban‘k Through its Chairman, Having H§ati O$Ge at Kaurim Bhatha, Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 2. Shri Vijay Kumar Chandrawanshh Agerl aimt #8 years, 3} o Nat hmwn, Working as Senim' Branch Manager Euiry OEcer) Branch - M — Jagazm, (nq m Durg — Ranandgaan Gra Bank, District — Durg (C.Cr.). ’ « EE ‘ \ ( uc §% rm 4’ N i an k u j min WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2261 22? OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANQE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. XI—HC~78 WW @ ,W (N P 36§}]2,cmlf m 200 mm (Wat) mmm WWW Wwm WW§fg€rW Ekwm $7.1.2GQ5 Shri Prasham‘ Jayaswal, Seni< for the paiJrioner. Heard on The quesfion of adm‘tssion. I? is submi'Hed by iearnw sheaf dafed 1"” February 2004 has cer‘min allegai-ions of financia! commf‘red in The year 1998-2000. ( annexure P-4. The pz‘ri‘rianer has 't for quashing *rhe' impugned charge s “for quashing of We emire proceedin 'ioner very §a§r§y submiffed ’rhm‘ a reply +0 ”(he charge sheef issued Tc The pehhaner has been “fieid before #he cohoerned ourhori‘ry on 3.3.2004 vide Anne ‘ Learned counsel for the pefi' gs sf depurfmemaLenqmry. )r Advoca‘fe wi1"h Shri Ali Asgar, Advocm‘e [coursel for The pefi‘rmner fhai‘ a charge lbeen issued ’ro The pe‘rifioner on accounf of ‘irreguhriries and misconéucf, aHegedly iopy of The charge shee‘r has been f%1ed‘as mayed for issuame of a wri‘r of cerfmrari heef, confuined ii’; Annexure P~4~ ant} also ure P5. Presen‘i’iy, he is chaiienging fhe vahdify of iseuonce of nofice and horge shee? on The ground of dekxy oboe. He Lsubmi‘w fha’r for fhe alleged ac of 1$98~2QOQ “(he charge sheel‘ has beeh lssued in ’rhe monfh of February 2 O4 and The delay in lssucmce of *The chorga sheet ls unexplained. He also draw af?enl'ion of fl‘he Coor'f fowards dooumeh’r Annexure P—ll, which is an applica‘li n wrii?en by The dealing Clerk nomely— RK. Thekur l showim ., ThaT The irre9 ul iTies were commiTTed b: him and he is responsible Tor The same. i I. have heard learned counse for The peTiTioner oT lengTh and Z have also genuseg The doeumenTs Annexed g ‘iTh The EeTiTipn. Learned counsel for The Wm w/Pg‘bg’liia m emm (W) Wmm r 2, , WW?iwm $§7Fcmm pafHioner couid no? poim ou4r as i‘o whefher‘ any Iimifafion is Erescribed for issuame of a tharge shea’r in a case like fhe case in hand. He is also unab§e f0 poin’r ouf any infirmify regarding au'rhorify and jurisdiction of The concerned \mxk officer who has issued “the charge shiaei' i0 fhe pe‘ri‘i’ioner. i Having heard ieamed counsel ‘i'ar ‘l'he pe’ri’rioner and having regard ‘io The facts ahd circumsfances of ihe case, in ihe opinion of ihis Court presen‘i is no? a fif case in Whith fhe inferferense s required a? ‘ihe inifiai siege of issuance of i‘he charge shee‘i'. In absence o-‘f challenge To ‘ihe Jurisdic‘i‘ion or fhe au‘ihori'iy and also in absence of pe~iad of limiiai‘ion for issuame of charge shee‘i and fur‘i‘her in ihe circumsianpe, iha‘i' ihedelay is nof inordina‘i‘e, ihis Couri‘ is no'i' inclined i‘o inferfere with i'he ma‘ii’er a? ihis siege. The peiii‘ion is dismissed a? iihe admission si-age ifself. Hawever, *ihe cancerned aufhorifies are direci‘ed in conclude fhe enquiry as early as possible preferably wi‘ihin The ou’rer limi‘i' of 9 menihs ‘from ihe daie of fiiing of i'he . copy of This crder‘ Wi‘ih ihe aforesaid direciions ilne pei‘i’ricns siands finally dispcsed of. l Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Su vii/K GtlDRJ FS/350—12/2000~50,000. i