Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhagwan Das Tiwari vs Narmada Jhabua Gramin Bank on 26 July, 2018
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
-: 1 :- Writ Petition No.14944 of 2018 (S).
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
BENCH INDORE
( Single Bench )
( Hon'ble Shri Justice Vivek Rusia )
Writ Petition No.14944 of 2018 (S).
Bhagwan Das s/o Kanhaiyalal Tiwari
VERSUS
Chairman, Narmada Jhabua Gramin Bank and others
*****
Smt. Rekha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
*****
O R D E R
( Passed on this 26th day of July, 2018 )
THE petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 30.06.2018 by which the petitioner has been terminated from the service.
[2] The petitioner is assailing the aforesaid order on the ground that he was not given adequate opportunity to produce the witnesses before the Departmental Enquiry. The impugned order of dismissal has been passed in arbitrary manner. The defence submitted by the petitioner was not considered by the Enquiry Officer as well as by the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, the present petition is filed without filing Departmental Appeal.
[3] Apart from dismissal order, simultaneously the petitioner has also challenged the Enquiry Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. According to the petitioner before passing the final order he submitted representation to the Chairman of the Bank on 26.06.2018 seeking further ten days' time to submit a reply and the time
-: 2 :- Writ Petition No.14944 of 2018 (S).
was not granted and the impugned order has been passed. The Enquiry Officer submitted its report dated 13.06.2018 which was received by the petitioner on 19.06.2018. On 26.06.2018 he submitted an application for extension of time. Thereafter the impugned order was passed on 30.06.2018. Admittedly the petitioner is having remedy of appeal under Section 49 of the Narmada Jhabua Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010. Section 49 is reproduced below :-
"49. Right to appeal.-- (1) An officer or employee may prefer an appeal against any order passed under these regulations to the Appellate Authority mentioned in regulation 50 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of such order.
(2) The Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal and pass order preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the appeal."
[4] The Apex Court in the case of Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev v/s State of Maharashtra [(2011) 2 SCC 782] has held as under :-
"22. We are in respectful agreement with the above enunciation of law on the point. It is manifest that an action under Section 14 of the Act constitutes an action taken after the stage of Section 13(4), and therefore, the same would fall within the ambit of Section 17(1) of the Act. Thus, the Act itself contemplates an efficacious remedy for the borrower or any person affected by an action under Section 13(4) of the Act, by providing for an appeal before the DRT.
23. In our opinion, therefore, the High Court rightly dismissed the petition on the ground that an efficacious remedy was available to the appellants under Section 17 of the Act. It is well-settled that ordinarily relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not available if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person. (See: Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.5; Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors.6; State Bank of India Vs. Allied Chemical Laboratories).
-: 3 :- Writ Petition No.14944 of 2018 (S).
24. In City and Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala & Ors.8, this Court had observed that:
"30. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether :
(a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved;
(b) the petition reveals all material facts;
(c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute;
(d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches;
(e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;
(f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors."
25. In the instant case, apart from the fact that admittedly certain disputed questions of fact viz. non- receipt of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, non- communication of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate etc. are involved, an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Act was available to the appellants, who ultimately availed of the same. Therefore, having regard to the facts obtaining in the case, the High Court was fully justified in declining to exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution."
[5] The petitioner can raise all these grounds before the appellate Authority also. Since the petitioner is having alternate efficacious remedy of appeal, therefore, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere at this stage with the order of dismissal from service.
[6] The petition is accordingly dismissed.
[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE Sharma AK/* Digitally signed by Anl Kumar Sharma Date: 2018.07.26 16:39:20 +05'30'