Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2153 (RAJ)

Sohan Singh v. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur

2006-07-07

K.S.RATHORE

body2006
Judgment K.S. Rathore, J.-This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 09.01.1990 and 24.05.1997 and the petitioner is working as Inspector (Executive) Grade-II in Udaipur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Udaipur. 2. The petitioner was served show cause notice to call upon explanation as to why disciplinary action under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules be not taken against him and the petitioner was charged with that the petitioner has failed to join the duties and remained willfully absent. Further the petitioner has not reported to the head quarters at Bhim and remained absent. The Managing Director, Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Udaipur vide its order dated 09.01.1990, after inquiry has held that the petitioner is guilty for remaining willfully absent for the period of 15 days i.e., from 011.1989 to 111.1989 and the penalty of withholding one annual grade increment without cumulative effect has been imposed. Vide order dated 24.05.1997 (Annexure-7), the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur dismissed the appeal of the petitioner filed against the order dated 09.01.1990. The Managing Director of the Udaipur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. vide office order dated 31.03.2003, sanctioned the leave of the petitioner for the period from 011.1989 to 111.1989 as leave without pay and the same has been also regularised for other purposes since the writ petition has been preferred against the penalty of stopping one annual grade increment without cumulative effect. 3. Upon careful perusal of the charge-sheet as well as the order of the Managing Director, Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Udaipur dated 09.01.1990 and the order of the the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur dated 24.05.1997, I find no illegality or error apparent on the face of the record as it is well established that the petitioner remained willfully absent for the period of 15 days i.e., from 011.1989 to 111.1989 and which also stands proved by the order dated 31.03.2003, by which the absence period of 15 days of the petitioner has been regularised and leave without pay for the aforesaid period has been sanctioned. 4. In view of these facts, I find no merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.