Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 3]

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Sarita Bai vs Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank 68 ... on 8 October, 2018

Bench: Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Parth Prateem Sahu

                                                      1


                                                                                         NAFR
                         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                         Writ Appeal No. 737 of 2018

       {Arising out of order dated 13.09.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
                                        (S) No. 6036 of 2018}

                Smt. Sarita Bai, W/o Shri Narayan Singh, aged about 39 years, Occupation -
                 Officer Assistant Grade-I, posted at CG Rajya Gramin Bank, Branch - Tapkara,
                 District Jashpur (C.G.)
                                                                                   ---- Appellant
                                                  Versus
             1. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Through its Chairman, Head Office: Mahadeo
                Ghat Road, Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
             2. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Through its General Manager, Head Office:
                Mahadeo Ghat Road, Sunder Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
                                                                                ---- Respondents

For Appellant : Shri K.N. Nande, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment on Board Per Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice 08.10.2018

1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant who was the Petitioner before the learned Single Judge.

2. The writ was filed against the second show cause issued to her as a part of disciplinary action initiated.

3. The submission of the counsel against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.09.2018 is that the Respondent authorities already have a pre- determined mind set to pass a particular order against the Appellant.

4. The learned Single Judge did not entertain such an argument on the ground that the Appellant has all the opportunity to show to the disciplinary authority 2 whatever objections she may have including the misgivings in law before an order of punishment, if at all is required to be visited.

5. The learned Single Judge has further given ample scope of opportunity to the Appellant to respond to the second show cause and if the disciplinary authority decides to impose some kind of punishment, the Appellant has all the opportunity thereafter to assail the said decision before the appropriate forum or a Court of law.

6. No infirmity emerges from the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed.

                          Sd/-                                                   Sd/-

                  (Ajay Kumar Tripathi)                                  (Parth Prateem Sahu)
                      Chief Justice                                             Judge
Brijmohan