Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 47 (UTT)

Deepak Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-01-10

MANOJ K.TIWARI, VIPIN SANGHI

body2023
JUDGMENT Vipin Sanghi, CJ. - The petitioner has preferred this petition to seek the following reliefs:- 'i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order impugned dated 21.05.2020 passed by the respondent no. 1 (Annexure No. 16) whereby the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Managing Director of State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Haldwani District Nainital to the post of General Manager. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Managing Director of the State Cooperative Bank Ltd Haldwani District Nainital with immediate effect and with all consequential benefits. iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28/10/2022 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure no. 1) which pertains to initiation of an open enquiry by vigilance during the period when the petitioner was discharging the function of Managing Director of State Cooperative Bank Ltd Haldwani District Nainital.' 2. So far as the first relief is concerned, we are inclined to issue notice. However, the challenge to the order dated 28.10.2022, whereby the respondents have decided to hold a vigilance enquiry against the petitioner, appears to be meritless. It appears that initially, ten charges were levelled against the petitioner, to which the petitioner responded. Thereafter, it is decided to proceed against the petitioner through a vigilance enquiry in respect of two charges. 3. The submission of Mr. Thapliyal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents have already held an enquiry by the Special Investigation Team (SIT). However, that report has not been prepared till date. Now, the respondents are proposing to hold vigilance enquiry against the petitioner for which the order dated 28.10.2022 has been issued. 4. It is open to the petitioner to pursue the matter with regard to the enquiry conducted by the SIT with the respondents. However, only because one SIT was constituted, which may, or may not, have prepared the report, the petitioner cannot object to the holding of the vigilance enquiry against him. 5. We therefore, dismiss this petition, qua relief no. 3. 6. Issue notice. 7. Counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 appears and accepts notice. He should file his counter affidavit within six weeks. 8. Rejoinder before the next date. 9. 5. We therefore, dismiss this petition, qua relief no. 3. 6. Issue notice. 7. Counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 appears and accepts notice. He should file his counter affidavit within six weeks. 8. Rejoinder before the next date. 9. In view of the dismissal of the petition qua relief no. 3, respondent no. 3 is deleted from the array of parties. 10. Amended memo of parties be filed within a week. 11. List this case on 21.06.2023.