WRITPETITION N0.4391 OF 1993 v. Manager, DistrictCentral Co-operative Bank
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SATISHK AGNIHOTRI
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Be1ng aggrieved by the order dated 31-12-1982 (Annexure - P/7) (as per the pleadings) the petitioner has filed this petition wherein the authorities in exercise of power under Rule 47 of the Madhya Pradesh Ke Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Karmachari Seva (Niyojan, Nibandhan Tatha…
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRITPETITION N0.4391 OF 1993 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Lakhanlal Versus Manager, DistrictCentral Co-operative Bank Ltd. &Another (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Behch : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Meera Jaiswal, Advocatefor the petitioner. — None for the respondent No.1 , despite service of notice. ORDER (OPEN COURT) (Passedon this 13th day of February, 2013)
Be1ng aggrieved by the order dated 31-12-1982 (Annexure - P/7) (as per the pleadings) the petitioner has filed this petition wherein the authorities in exercise of power under Rule 47 of the Madhya Pradesh Ke Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Karmachari Seva (Niyojan, Nibandhan Tatha Unki Karya Stithi) Niyam (for short "the Rules") removed the petitioner from service. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was working as Samiti Sevak in the respondent No.1 society. On inspection, it was found that there was a shortage to the tune of Rs.997.50 in sale of the grains. Accordingly.a charge sheet dated 10-9-1981 was issued. Shri R.P. Verma was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Shri Bushan Lal Dewangan was appointed as Presenting Officer. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued and proper enquiry was held wherein the Irrthe enquiry, the charge No.1 was not found petitioner participated. proved whereas the charge No.2 was found proved. After submission the disciplinary authority agreeing with the the enquiry report, ,
enquiry report, passed the impugned order. There is no challenge to the enquiry proceedings as well as conclusion reached by the enquiry officer. The averments made in the petijion appears to be in the nature of mercy petition, embezzlement, which has been prqved after proper enquiry and no is also not a case of no infirmity or illegality has been fourjd. It is a case of It Even the petitioner has made a request to make the evidence. payment in installments. Thus, the jimpugned order is in accordanee I with law.
As an upshot, the writ petition ^s dismissed. No orderasto costs. \ liable to be and is hereby •!~S&1—^ SatishK. Agnihotri Judge f^i / .,?•
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.