Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Vidhya Choure vs Central Bank Of India on 4 March, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:31562
1 WP-2002-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 4 th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 2002 of 2020
SMT. VIDHYA CHOURE
Versus
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Subodh Kathar - Advocate for petitioner.
Smt. Nirmala Nayak - Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.
ORDER
This petition has been filed challenging the enquiry report dated 10.12.2015 (Annexure P-20) issued by the respondent No.6 communicated to the petitioner on 06.06.2019 finding the allegations made by the petitioner to be unsustainable.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and her husband was working in the Staff Tea Canteen of the respondent No.3 Bank and they also help in other Bank's work. The respondent No.3 Bank was satisfied with the working of the petitioner and her husband and a certificate to the aforesaid effect dated 19.05.2012 has been issued. They also received salaries for their work from the respondent No.3 Bank. The petitioner has passed eight class examination, belongs to Other Backward Class and has come under the category of lower income group. Her name was registered in the District Employment Exchange, Betul as unemployed. The respondent No.2 Regional Office of Central Bank issued an advertisement for filling the total 64 post of Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 18-07-2025 11:24:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:31562 2 WP-2002-2020 sweeper-cum-peon including the candidates who have worked in the Bank on temporary and contingency basis clarifying the position that such person should be continued for 45 days out of 12 months. The petitioner submitted an application before the respondent No. 3. She was informed by the respondents No.2 and 3 through his husband that if petitioner want to job, then she should pay Rs.75,000/-, but the petitioner's husband refused for such illegal demand of the respondents No.2 and 3 pointing out the petitioner fulfilled the entire criteria, therefore, she is a deserving candidate for appointment. Since the petitioner has not received any interview call letter, her husband approached the respondent No.3 on 07.02.2013 and it was informed that the application of the petitioner has been rejected, but later on, on 12.02.2013, petitioner has received interview call letter dated 28.01.2013 for interview dated 10.02.2013. The petitioner immediately filed a writ petition being WP No.2853 of 2013 before this Court contending therein that she has made serious allegations against the respondents including the department of post office, that due to omission and negligence on their part she received interview call letter at belated stage on when the interview was already over. She prayed for an opportunity to appear in the interview. The said writ petition was disposed off on 01.03.2013 with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for redressal her grievances. She made a complaint to the Central Vigilance Cell, New Delhi on 13.03.2013 pointing out the illegalities and corruption which took place in making appointments on the post of sweeper-cum-peon. She also filed an application under Right to Information Act for getting information of payment right from Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 18-07-2025 11:24:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:31562 3 WP-2002-2020 2006 to 2013. She was further informed vide letter dated 12.04.2013 that her complaint was forwarded to respondent No.5 for necessary action. However, the said complaint was never addressed, therefore, she submitted another application before the respondent No.4 mentioning that there was serious corruption in the recruitment process of the respondent Bank. She has further pointed out that she has fulfilling all the qualification for her appointment and working under the respondent No.3 Bank since 2006. As there was a demand of illegal gratification of Rs.75,000/- raised by the respondents No.2 and 3, she was not appointed. It is argued that the authorities have failed to enquiry into the complaint made by the petitioner. She has filed another writ petition being WP No.19688 of 2013 on which notices were issued to the respondents, however, as no reply was filed for a period of two years the petition was finally disposed off with a direction to the respondent No.5 to enquiry into the allegations and inform the outcome to the petitioner within a period of three months. Thereafter, the complaint raised by the petitioner was entertained, however, the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner. She applied under the Right to Information Act for obtaining the said information, the same was supplied to the petitioner on 06.06.2019 including the enquiry report dated 10.12.2015. It is argued that the petitioner has been forced to withdraw her complaint and writ petition and have also claosed the right of the petitioner's husband for withdrawal of the amount from KCC limit. However, on interference by the Collector the same was recalled. The petitioner was not allowed to participate in the enquiry as the same has been carried out behind her back. The authorities have acted malafidely against Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 18-07-2025 11:24:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:31562 4 WP-2002-2020 the petitioner. The petitioner was fulfilling all the requisite criteria for appointment to the post in question. However, she has received the interview call letter after the date of the interview, therefore, she was not a position to participate in the interview. Even the complaint made by the petitioner was enquired into by the authorities behind the back of the petitioner and she was not permitted to participate in the enquiry. Therefore, the entire allegations made the petitioner could not have considered by the authorities without the participation of the petitioner in the said enquiry. She has prayed for quashment of the impugned communication with a further direction to the authorities to reconsider the complaint of the petitioner and to set aside the entire selection process and appointment made on the post of sweeper-cum- peon.
3. On notice being issued, a reply has been filed by the authorities denying the petition averments. It is argued that the earlier petition filed was withdrawn with a liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of her grievance. In the second round of litigation, the writ petition was disposed off with a direction to the respondents to conduct an enquiry within three months. The same has been done by the authorities and a detailed report has been passed on 10.12.2025. It is contended that with regard to appointment on 64 posts the Regional Office, Chhindwara published an advertisement on 07.11.2012 pointing out the available vacancies and reservation/eligibility/age criteria with relaxation in different categories with an opportunity to those candidates to apply for the post who has already worked in the branches on temporary or contractual basis for a minimum of Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 18-07-2025 11:24:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:31562 5 WP-2002-2020 45 days in continuous 12 months. Number of candidates were called for interview which was scheduled on 8th, 9 th and 10th of February, 2013 at Regional Office, Chhindwara. Two Committees were constituted by R.O. Chhindwara comprising of one Chief Manager of Chairman, One Senior Manager, one Officer belongs to SC/ST/OBC, one officer from Minority community and one officer as women representative, call letters for personal interview were issued to all the eligible candidates and dispatched at their respective addresses. The petitioner's call letter was dispatched on 01.02.2013 under the registered cover with receipt No.RI0760700851N. She was called for interview scheduled on 10.02.2013 at 01:00 PM. She has not appeared in the interview and was marked as absent. It is argued that the complaint was made by the petitioner regarding illegal gratification which was investigated by the Vigilance Officer in detail at Zonal Office, Bhopal and finding all allegations made in the complaint to be unsustainable and the complaint was closed which is Annexure P/20. It is argued that once the appointments have taken place in view of the advertisement issued by the authorities the petitioner was required to challenge the said appointment as rights have accrued in favour of the successful candidate. The petitioner has not challenged the same, instead the petitioner is challenging the enquiry report submitted by the Vigilance Officer finding the allegations made by the petitioner to be unsustainable. It is argued that the copy of the enquiry report was served to the petitioner. From the perusal of the report it is clear that all the allegations levelled by the petitioner were found to be incorrect. Therefore, there is no illegality in issuing the impugned communication by Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 18-07-2025 11:24:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:31562 6 WP-2002-2020 the authorities dealing with the complaints made by the petitioner. The petitioner has not pointed out any flaw in the vigilance report wherein the allegations made by the petitioner were found to be incorrect. Therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record.
5. From the record it is clear that in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the respondents the petitioner was one of the candidates who has applied for appointment to the post in question. It is her case that she has received an information from the department to pay Rs.75,000/- for her appointment to the post in question as illegal gratification and the second ground raised is that she has received the call letter at a belated stage. In the earlier round of litigation the writ petition filed by the petitioner was withdrawn by her to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of her grievances being WP No.2853 of 2013. Thereafter, she made a complaint to the Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi. Another writ petition being WP No.19688 of 2013 was filed which was disposed off on 15.10.2015 with a liberty to pursue her complaint with respondent No.5. There was no positive direction given by the Court except the fact that respondent No.5 is expected to take appropriate steps thereon in accordance with law and inform the outcome to the petitioner. Document Annexure P/16 filed with the petition dated 18.12.2015 shows that the information was communicated to the petitioner that the allegations levelled were found to be incorrect and the complaint is closed . Challenging the said report the petitioner again started making complaints to various authorities. She has even made a complaint to the President of India Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 18-07-2025 11:24:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:31562 7 WP-2002-2020 regarding illegalities committed by the authorities. If the report submitted by the Vigilance Department dated 10.12.2015 is perused then it is seen that the parawise analysis of all the allegations made by the petitioner was done by the authorities and her complaint was found to be incorrect. From the record it is clear that the petitioner has failed to challenge the report dated 18.12.2015 supplied to her by the Vigilance department. Even otherwise, there is no challenge to the appointment orders of the other candidates, who were successful in their interview. The entire recruitment drive has taken place in the year 2013. The petitioner has chosen to keep quite and not to challenge the appointment orders of the other candidates. She has never preferred any petition seeking cancellation of the entire selection drive. On the contrary, she is pursuing her complaint levelling allegations regarding corruption being carried out in the recruitment process which was found to be incorrect by the Vigilance Committee. Under these circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage. The Vigilance Committee has minutely analyzed all the allegations levelled by the petitioner and has arrived at a conclusion that the allegations are found to be incorrect and accordingly the rejected the complaint of the petitioner.
6. The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE THK Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 18-07-2025 11:24:50