Rajesh Kumar Paul v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:5948-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 73 of 2025 Rajesh Kumar Paul S/o Late Shailendranath Paul Aged About 46 Years Clerk/the Then Incharge Cashier At Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Ltd. Ambikapur Branch, Ramanujganj District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. At Present Branch Chalgali, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, R/o Krishnanagar (Kerwasheela) P.S. Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Thro - The Secretary Department of Co- Operative Societies, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Joint Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 4. The Chief Executive OfÏcer Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 5. The Chairman Cum Board of Director Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 6. The Collector Cum Authorized OfÏcer Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Balrampur, Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.02.03 18:10:20 +0530 2 For Appellant For Respondent/State : : For Respondents No. 4 to 6 :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. A.S. Rajput, Advocate. Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03 .02.2025 1. Heard Mr. A.S. Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State and Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 4 to 6. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 7916 of 2024 (Rajesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has
Decision
dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner herein. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was initially appointed on the post of Clerk in the year 2020 on compassionate ground after death of his father, namely, Shailendranath Paul at Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Ambikapur Branch Ramanujganj and in the year 2023 after completion of probation period the service of the appellant has been regularized on the said post. He also submits that on 05.08.2024, the respondent No. 4 written a letter to Incharge Branch 3 Manager, Branch Balrampur regarding the financial irregularities of Branch Ramanujganj and directed to lodge FIR against the concerned Bank employees and account holder. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that on 06.08.2024, the Incharge Branch Manager written a letter to Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) for registration of FIR regarding the irregularities of Branch Ramanujganj. Thereafter, on 06.08.2024, the Police of Police Station Ramanujganj registered the FIR against the appellant along with other two accused persons for offence punishable under Section 409/34 of the IPC. He would submit that on 07.08.2024, the appellant has been arrested by Police of Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj for alleged offence and on same date i.e. on 07.08.2024, the appellant has been suspended by the respondent No. 4 and on the same date the respondent No. 4 has issued show-cause notice to the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant has filed the reply to show-cause notice dated 07.08.2024 through Superintendent of Jail District Jail Ramanujganj. Thereafter, on 08.10.2024, the appellant has filed MCRC No. 7150 of 2024 before this Court which was allowed on 08.11.2024. He also states that on 10.10.2024, the respondent No. 4 has passed the impugned order by which the appellant has been removed from the post of Clerk in violation of Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Karmachari Sewa Rules and without competency. Thereafter, the appellant has filed writ petition vide WPS No. 7916 of 2024 before this Court challenging the removal order dated 10.10.2024 passed by respondent No. 4 which was dismissed vide order dated 05.12.2024. 4 6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge failed to see that when the appellant was in jail a departmental enquiry was initiated and concluded against him, the appellant was working on the post of Clerk Class-III and the removal order passed by the Chief Executive OfÏcer without competency because as per Rule 58 & 61 the Staff Sub-Committee is competent instead of Chief Executive OfÏcer, however, the respondent No. 4 has passed the impugned order against the appellant without giving opportunity of hearing, without competency and violation of fundamental rights and the learned Single Judge passed impugned order by dismissing the writ petition of the appellant merely on the ground of efÏcacious alternative remedy is available which is illegal. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 05.12.2024 is untenable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 4 to 6 submit that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. They would submit that the appellant has an efÏcacious alternative remedy to raise the dispute according to Section 55(2) of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 or to approach Appellate Authority as per service Rules. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 9. Though the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition of 5 the appellant on the ground of efÏcacious alternative remedy under Section 55(2) of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Society Act, 1960 is available to the appellant, but he has stressed upon his argument on the ground that the termination which was made by the authority concerned was not a competent authority as he was a Class-III employee (Clerk) and the authority who can terminate him is Staff Sub-Committee, but from the perusal of the termination order dated 10.10.2024 goes to show that the competent authority on the recommendation of the Staff Sub-Committee has passed the termination order dated 10.10.2204 of the appellant, hence, it is evident that the competent authority has passed the order dated 10.10.2024. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere with the order dated 10.10.2024 passed by the respondent No. 4. 10. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Judge Brijmohan