Disposed

Vishnu Dev Mishra v. Union of India and 8 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2021WRIA/6193/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge held that the writ petition regarding dismissal of a bank employee was not maintainable due to the availability of an internal appeal remedy. The court disposed of the petition with liberty to file an appeal before the Board of Directors within three weeks, condoning any delay.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner is directed to file an appeal before the Board of Directors within three weeks from the date of this order, with delay condoned.

Vishnu Dev Mishra Vs Union of India and 8… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6193 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Vishnu Dev Mishra Respondent :- Union Of India And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Tanisha Jahangir Monir,Arvind Varma (Sr. Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Aditiya Kumar Singh,Pramod Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Arvind Varma learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Tanisha Jahangir Monir learned Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Khare learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Aditiya Kumar Singh learned Advocate for the respondentBank.

¶6

A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the respondent-bank regarding maintainability of the writ petition against the termination order dated 16th June, 2020 which has been passed by respondent no. 3 i.e. the General Manager, Baroda U.P. Bank, Head Office, Gorakhpur on the ground that remedy of statutory appeal is available.

¶7

The contention of the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner is that the show cause notice proposing punishment of termination of the petitioner had been issued on 25th March, 2020, which was served upon the petitioner in the month of April, 2020, during the national lockdown due to Covid-19.

¶8

The answer to the said notice was given by the petitioner after which the termination order was passed by the General Manager.

¶9

Placing the show cause notice dated 25th March, 2020, it is contended by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that the disciplinary authority though is the General Manager but the Chairman had applied his mind on the enquiry report, inasmuch as, the show cause notice proposing the punishment had been issued by the Chairman.

¶10

It is, thus, contended that the petitioner cannot be relegated to file appeal before the Chairman who had already applied his mind on the enquiry report.

¶11

Considering the said submissions of learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and the provisions as contained in Regulation

¶12

50 of the Purvanchal Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010, it is evident that the appeal against the order of the General Manager can be filed before the Chairman.

¶13

It is further evident from the record that the General Manager, Baroda U.P. Bank, Gorakhpur had submitted the enquiry report before the Chairman who after perusal of the same had issued show cause notice to the petitioner. The Chairman otherwise is higher authority than the General Manager who is the competent authority to take disciplinary action against the petitioner. Relegating the petitioner to approach the Chairman who had already applied his mind on the enquiry report would cause prejudice. The appeal would, therefore, lie before the Board against the decision of the Chairman.

¶14

The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the observation that the petitioner shall file an appeal in accordance with the Regulation 50 of the Service Regulations, 2010, before the Board of Director of the Bank.

¶15

In case, the appeal is filed within a period of three weeks alongwith copy of this order, the delay in filing the appeal, if any, shall be condoned by the Board of Director and appeal be entertained without raising any objection as to the maintainability thereof.

¶16

All effort shall be made to decide the appeal on merits at the earliest, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of the same.

¶17

Disposed of .

¶18

Order Date :- 25.1.2021 Brijesh

¶19

Digitally signed by Justice Sunita Agarwal Date: 2021.01.27 18:29:26 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vishnu Dev Mishra v. Union of India and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Dev Mishra v. Union of India and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Usha Pal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Harsh Anand Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Murari Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Others

H.R Tripathi Vs General Manager North Central 3 Others

Banti Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jitendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U P and 2 Others