Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Vs Sandip Kumar Singh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:8189

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCC No. 641 of 2022

¶6

1 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through Its Chairman, Head Office Mahadev Ghat Road, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Through Its Regional Manager,regional Office First Floor, Vivek Complex, Sanam Gali, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶8

3 - Branch Manager, Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Branch Office, Sedam, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioners/applicants

¶10

versus

¶11

Sandip Kumar Singh S/o Mr. Ravindra Pratap Singh Aged About 26 Years Working As Office Assistant (Suspended), R/o Village Ghoghra, Ps And Tehsil Batouli, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

For Petitioners/Applicants : Mr. Sabyasachhi Bhaduri, Advocate. For Respondent : None present.

¶14

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar. Chandravanshi

¶15

Order On Board 17-02-2025

¶16

Heard.

¶17

1. This MCC has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :-

¶18

“(a) Allow the present petition seeking clarification /

¶19

modification of the order dated 27.03.2018 passed by this

¶20

2

¶21

Hon'ble Court in WPS No. 2377/2018 to the extent as mentioned in the present petition, enabling the present Petitioner to proceed with the departmental enquiry.

¶22

(b) Allow the present petition seeking clarification / modification of the order dated 27.03.2018 passed by this Hon'ble Court in WPS No. 2377/2018 and permit the Petitioner to proceed with the departmental enquiry contemplated against the Respondent herein after imposing appropriate conditions as prayed for in the present petition.

¶23

(c) Pass any further appropriate writ, order, direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

¶24

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that in pursuance of the order dated 27.03.2018 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 2377 of 2018, departmental proceedings initiated against the respondent / employee has been stalled till conclusion of concerned criminal case pending against the respondent, but till date criminal case has not been concluded, therefore, the applicant may be permitted to conclude departmental proceedings against respondent by modifying aforesaid order dated 27.03.2018 passed by this Court.

¶25

3. In WPS No. 2377 of 2018, this Court has passed the following order on 27.03.2018, which reads as under :-

¶26

“9. Likewise, if we peruse the decision rendered in State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Neelam Nag & Anr. 2016 (9) SCC 491, it would reveal that the Supreme Court in the said case also initially had taken note of the fact that charges which have been levelled against the petitioner in the criminal case and also in the disciplinary proceeding, if not identical, almost are on similar set of facts and witnesses also relied upon before

¶27

3

¶28

the two forums being similar, the disciplinary action against the petitioner was stalled for a period of one year. The period of one year was perhaps for the reason that the proceedings before the criminal court was going on since long, whereas, in the instant case the departmental proceedings have been initiated recently. Therefore, at this juncture, it would be in the interest of justice that the departmental proceedings against the petitioner be stalled till the criminal case is finally concluded and thereafter the respondents would be at liberty to proceed further from the stage the inquiry proceedings are fixed as on date.

¶29

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.”

¶30

4. Having considered the clear-cut finding recorded by the Coordinate Bench of this Court based on judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Neelam Nag (supra) that “in the interest of justice that the departmental proceedings against the respondent be stalled till the criminal case is finally concluded and thereafter the applicants would be at liberty to proceed further from the stage the inquiry proceedings are fixed as on date”, this Court is of the view that neither order reserving review is found to be made nor any modification is required in the order dated 27.03.2018 passed by this Court in WPS No. 2377 of 2018. As such, this MCC is liable to be dismissed.

¶31