Allowed

Mihir Pratap Samantaray v. Industrial Development Bank of India Limited (Idbi Bank)

Chhattisgarh HC10 Aug 2022WPS/2252/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed the writ petition and ordered completion of the departmental inquiry within three months. The court expressly reserved its view on the maintainability and ART 12 status of the IDBI bank, deciding it in an appropriate case.

What did the court decide?

The interim order stands vacated; the instant petition stands disposed of; the enquiry is directed to be completed within three months from the date of receipt of this Order.

Mihir Pratap Samantaray Vs Industrial… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

Page 1 of 3

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (S) No. 2252 of 2018

¶5

Mihir Pratap Samantaray aged 35 years S/o Shri N. N. Samantaray Assistant Manager- Grade “A” Industrial Development Bank of India Limited (IDBI Bank). Opposite Rama Port, Vyapar Vihar Main Road, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.).

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Industrial Development Bank of India Limited (IDBI Bank), through: Chief Managing Director IDBI Tower, WTC Complex Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400005.

¶9

General Manager (Business) Industrial Development Bank of India Limited (IDBI Bank), zonal Office, IDBI House Janpath, Unit-9 Bhubaneswar- Orissa- 751022

¶10

Deputy General Manager Chhattisgarh-II Region (Regional Head) Industrial Development Bank of India Limited (IDB( Bank_, Opposite Rama Prot, Vyapar Vihar Main Road, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur(Chhattisgarh).

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate

¶13

For Respondents : Mr. Abhishekh Sinha, Sr. Advocate along-with Mr. D. L Dewangan, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶15

Judgment on Board

¶16

10.08.2022

¶17

The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition on 26.02.2018 challenging the charge-sheet dated 7^th April, 2017 issued against the petitioner vide Annexure P-1, wherein the charges have been framed against the petitioner.

¶18

This Court, while entertaining the instant writ petition, has passed the following interim order on 15.05.2018, which reads as under:-

¶19

“ Till the reply of the respondents is filed and matter is taken up on the next date, no final order and the department inquiry shall be taken by the respondents”

¶20

The said interim order was continued on 04.07.2018 &

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

24.09.2018 and till today.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents -bank has deliberately segregated the chargesheet and two or three chargesheets were prepared thus, the action of the bank suffers from malafide and arbitrariness.

¶24

On the other hand, learned counsel for the bank would submit that the charges have been framed against the petitioner are distinct and clear, even the interference by this Court is very limited, he would further submit that the IDBI Bank is not fall within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India therefore, the instant writ petition is not maintainable.

¶25

When this matter was taken-up for hearing today, this Court asked learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents about the present status of the enquiry, then he would submit that the enquiry has been completed on 18.04.2018 and the petitioner has also submitted the reply to the enquiry report on 23.06.2020. He would next submit that since interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioners by this Court on 15.05.2018, therefore, the respondents authorities have not proceeded further with the matter.

¶26

Be that as it may be, if the enquiry has already about to reach to its logical end, then it is directed that the enquiry shall be completed within outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

¶27

However, all the objections raised by the petitioner with regard to framing of charges, vagueness or malafied intention of the bank or validity of the enquiry shall be considered by the disciplinary Authority in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observation made by this Court.

¶28

It is also made clear that the question of maintainability of the writ petitioner and whether the IDBI Bank is state within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India will be decided in appropriate case.

¶29

Page 3 of 3

¶30

Accordingly, the interim order passed by this Court stands vacated.

¶31

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant petition stands disposed of.

¶32

Sd-

¶33

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶34

Judge

¶35

Amita

Mihir Pratap Samantaray v. Industrial Development Bank of India Limited (Idbi Bank)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mihir Pratap Samantaray v. Industrial Development Bank of India Limited (Idbi Bank)

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

Alka Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhirendra Kumar Dhirhi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Kumar Vaidya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Singh Tilwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abhishek Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ahibaran Lal Patel Vs Smt. Ranu Sahu