Disposed

Manish Gupta S/O Sh. Bal Kishan Gupta v. Beawar Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited

Rajasthan HC12 Feb 2025CW/2225/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A cooperative bank employee dismissed by a one-line order without enquiry or hearing challenged it as a violation of Rule 17 of the 2006 Service Rules. The court quashed the dismissal for breach of natural justice and directed fresh proceedings with due enquiry within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned dismissal order dated 01.01.2025 quashed; respondents directed to pass fresh order after completing enquiry per Rule 17 within three months.

Manish Gupta S/O Sh. Bal Kishan Gupta Vs Beawar… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:6081]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2225/2025

¶4

Manish Gupta S/o Sh. Bal Kishan Gupta, aged about 50 Years, Resident of 26/45, Agrasen Nagar, Delwara Road, Beawar (Raj.) -305091

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Beawar Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited, through its Chairman, Headquarters at Shah Market, Pali Bazar, Beawar (Raj.) - 305091

¶8

Chairman, Beawar Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, Headquarters at Shah Market, Pali Bazar, Beawar (Raj.) - 305091

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Samdaria For Respondent(s) :

¶11

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

12/02/2025

¶14

By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 01.01.2025 passed by the respondents by which the services of the petitioner have been dismissed in exercise of powers contained under Rule 17 (C) of the Urban Cooperative Banks Employees Service Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 2006”).

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a chargesheet was served upon the petitioner along with memorandum of charges in the year 2022 against which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply. Counsel submits that without holding any enquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,

[2025:RJ-JP:6081]

[CW-2225/2025]

(2 of 3)

straightaway the order impugned has been passed in one single line by which the petitioner has been dismissed from services. Counsel submits that as per the mandate contained under Rule 17 of the Rules of 2006, the respondents were duty bond to follow the mandatory procedure as prescribed under this rules but without following the same, the order impugned has been passed, which has resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice, hence interference of this Court is warranted.

¶20

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that a memorandum of charges was served upon the petitioner by the respondents vide charge-sheet dated 14.07.2022 and the petitioner submitted reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet in the year 2022 itself. It appears that the respondents were sitting over the matter for a period of more than two years and one fine morning i.e. on 01.01.2025, the order impugned was passed in one single line by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated.

¶21

It appears that before passing the impugned order, the respondents have forgotten to comply the mandatory procedure contained under Rule 17 of the Rules of 2006 and without holding any enquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, straightaway the order impugned has been passed which has resulted in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. Violation of natural justice is vice of the order which was defied by the respondents. Hence under such peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the order impugned passed by the respondents is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and set

[2025:RJ-JP:6081]

[CW-2225/2025]

(3 of 3)

aside and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to pass fresh order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, after following the mandatory procedure of law as contained under Rule 17 of the Rules of 2006.

¶26

This order has been passed with the above direction to the respondents to avoid the further delay because charge-sheet was issued by them to the petitioner way back in the year 2022 but they forgot to complete the enquiry and pass the final order thereupon. The final fate of this petition would be remand of the matter with directions to them to hold and conclude the enquiry for passing appropriate orders after following the due process contained under Rule 17 of the Rules of 2006. This order has been passed in the best interest of both sides, even if the respondents feel aggrieved by this order, they would be at liberty to move an application for recalling/modification of this order.

¶27

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly.

¶28

Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶29

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶30

Ashu/44

Manish Gupta S/O Sh. Bal Kishan Gupta v. Beawar Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Gupta S/O Sh. Bal Kishan Gupta v. Beawar Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited

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

Pramod Kumar Vs Executive Officer Nagar Palika

Sandhya Jadon D/O Dilip Singh Jadon Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Sharma Son of Shri Laxman Singh Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through Its Principal Secretary to the Government

Giriraj Prasad Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ravindra Kumar Gurjar S/O Shri Ram Bharosi Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

The Assistan Engineer Riico Vs Labour Court -Cum-Industrial T