Shiv Shankar Prasad Vs Chairman Jharkhand Gramin Bank

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (S) No. 1646 of 2023

Sheo Shankar Prasad, aged about 62 years, Son of late Bishun Saw, Resident of Mahavir Nagar, Argora, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi

¶4

… … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Chairman, Jharkhand Gramin Bank having office at Rajendra Place 5, Main Road, P.O. Chutia, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi

¶7

General Manager, Jharkhand Gramin Bank having office at Rajendra Place 5, Main Road, P.O. Chutia, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi

¶8

Chairman, Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank having office at Rajendra Place 5, Main Road, P.O. Chutia, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi

¶9

… … Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶12

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate Mr. Shubham Mayank, Advocate Mr. Pratyush Shounikya, Advocate For the Resp.-Bank : Mr. Shubham Sinha, Advocate Mr. Mrinal Singh, Advocate

¶13

06/18^th March 2024

¶14

1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶15

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -

¶16

“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the penalty order dated 28.03.2019 (Annexure-7) issued under the signature of General Manager-cumCompetent Authority whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been imposed with major penalty of "Reduction in time scale of pay by four states with cumulative effect for one year with further direction that after expiry of such period of reduction this will have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay" under Regulation 39 1 (b) (1) of Jharkhand Gramin Bank (Officer and Employees), Service Regulation, 2010) for the reason that the impugned order dated 28.03.2019 has not been passed by the competent authority as because the competent authority in the case of the officers is the Chairman, Jharkhand Gramin Bank and not the General Manager, Jharkhand Gramin Bank and further taking into consideration the fact that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is no incommensurate with the charges leveled against the petitioner.

¶17

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically once the impugned order is set aside by this Hon'ble Court taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1986 and prior to passing of order of penalty he has served to the satisfaction of the respondent authorities, the Chairman, Jharkhand Gramin Bank for a period of about 33 long years.

¶18

AND/OR

¶19

2

¶20

(iii) For further issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/ order(s) /direction (s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

¶21

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the point involved in the present case has submitted that the memorandum of charge was issued against the petitioner by the General Manager stating to be the competent authority and an order of punishment has also been passed by the said authority. He submits that although the point of jurisdiction has not been raised in the disciplinary proceedings, but the General Manager was not the competent authority to initiate a departmental proceeding against him and therefore the entire proceeding is vitiated on account of want of jurisdiction. The learned counsel submits that the appropriate authority would have been the Chairman himself and therefore the present writ petition has been filed in spite of the fact that the impugned order itself reflect that the petitioner may file his appeal before the Chairman being the appellate authority.

¶22

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that if the proceeding has been initiated by an incompetent authority, this aspect of the matter can certainly be taken care of by the Chairman and therefore this writ petition may not be entertained. He has also submitted that various circulars and the rules governing the petitioner will have to be taken into consideration and therefore the present proceeding may not be a proceeding on pure question of law. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the point of jurisdiction has been raised by the petitioner, but at any point of time the petitioner did not raise the point of jurisdiction before the authority who had initiated the departmental proceeding. At the same time, mere participation by the petitioner will not confer jurisdiction.

¶23

6. However, so far as the point of jurisdiction is concerned, it appears to be a mixed question of fact and law in the present case and accordingly, this Court is not inclined to proceed any further in this writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to agitate this point before the respondent No. 3 as the impugned order itself indicates that the appeal would lie before the Chairman being the appellate authority.

¶24

7. If the petitioner files an appeal before the Chairman within a period of one month from today and raises the point of jurisdiction, the same shall be

¶25

3

¶26

taken care of by the Chairman. Both the point of jurisdiction as well as on merits be decided by the respondent No. 3.

¶27

8. If the appeal is filed within the aforesaid timeframe, the respondent No. 3 shall ensure expeditious disposal of the appeal preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of filing the appeal.

¶28

9. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶29

10. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.

¶30

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶31

Mukul

Shiv Shankar Prasad v. Chairman Jharkhand Gramin Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Shankar Prasad v. Chairman Jharkhand Gramin Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogendra Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Fahim Ansari Alias Pappu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prabhat Chandra Biswas Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prakash Gorait Vs Central Coalfields Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Leeladhar Prasad Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sumeet Chauhan Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Deptt of Home Prison and Disaster Management