Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 313 (JHR)

Rama Shankar Singh v. Central Bank of India

2012-03-01

P.P.BHATT

body2012
JUDGMENT By Court Heard the petitioner Mr. Rama Shankar Singh (in person) as well as learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-Bank. 2. Perused the papers. 3. The petitioner by way of the present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing and setting aside the order contained in letter No. ZO/DAW/2002-03/268, dated 27.11.2002 (Annexure-7). The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the order contained in Memo No. ZO/PRS/DAD/03-04/1135, dated 02.01.2004 (Annexure-11). It is also prayed that the Respondents-authorities may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for lesser punishment. 4. It appears that in the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority, in the departmental proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the appearing for the Respondent-Bank pointed out that as per Regulation 18 of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, there is a provision for review. 6. It appears that this point has been raised in the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent-Bank, which has not been dealt with by the petitioner in his rejoinder/supplementary affidavit. 7. The learned counsel for the Respondent-Bank has also pointed that in a similar situation, this Court has directed the petitioner to approach the Reviewing authority as per the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 687 of 1998 (R). 8. Having regards to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is desirable that the petitioner be asked to approach the Reviewing Authority by preferring an appropriate Review application and upon preferring such an application by the petitioner, the Reviewing authority is also required to be directed to consider and pass appropriate order within stipulated time in accordance with law so that the grievance of the petitioner can be looked into by a statutory Forum, provided under the Regulation. 9. Under the circumstances, the petitioner shall submit a Review application through the Regional Manager, addressed to the General Manager within one month from the date of the order, who in turn, will refer this Review application to the competent/appropriate authority, if so required and the said authority shall consider and decide the Review application in accordance with law within the period of six months thereafter. It is further clarified that the petitioner will be at liberty to raise all the points available to him including all the issues, raised in the present application before the Reviewing authority and the Reviewing authority shall also provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the present petitioner during the course of consideration of the Review application. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.