The judgment emphasized the limited scope of court interference in suits challenging the Show Cause Notice and charge sheet, highlighting the distinction between the maintainability of the suit and the scope of court interference.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. - This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 18.01.2021 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in appeal, being MCA No.13/2020 titled The Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Sh. Virender Singh, allowing the appeal filed by the respondent herein and dismissing the suit of the petitioner as pre-mature and without any cause of action.

2. The appeal had been filed before the learned Appellate Court challenging the ad interim order dated 30.09.2020 of the learned Civil Judge-07, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in suit, being CS SCJ 1234/2020, restraining the respondent from proceeding further with the inquiry/departmental proceedings against the petitioner.

3. The petitioner has challenged the Impugned Order on the ground that the appeal having been filed only against an ad interim order of injunction, the learned Appellate Court has erred in dismissing the suit itself of the petitioner.

4. In the present case, the petitioner had filed the above suit praying for the following relief:

"1. Pass a decree of Permanent & Mandatory Injunction in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants thereby restraining the Defendant from initiating/continuing any enquiry/departmental proceedings against the Plaintiff;

2. Pass a decree to declare the Show Cause Notice dated 16.09.2020 and Chargesheet dated 23.09.2020 as null and void in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants."

5. Alongwith the plaint, the petitioner had filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') praying for an order restraining the respondent from initiating/continuing any inquiry/departmental proceedings against the petitioner till the disposal of the suit.

6. The suit was listed before the learned Trial Court on 30.09.2020 for consideration of the application of the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code and the application of the respondent under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.

7. The application of the petitioner was partly heard and the following order was passed therein:

"Present: None.

Vide separate order passed today, the application u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC has been disposed of as dismissed.

Regarding the injunction application, it has been the argument of the plaintiff that he is not able to prepare the written statement of defence in reply to charge-sheet dated 23.09.20 as no document has been provided to him alongwith the said charge-sheet. The counsel for the defendant has not specifically denied this claim.

Accordingly, the defendant is directed to supply the copy of all the requisite documents to the plaintiff within 7 days so as to enable him to prepare reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet. Copy of the said documents be also filed in the court within 7 days.

The defendant is restrained from proceeding further with the inquiry/departmental proceedings in question till the next date of hearing.

Adjourn the matter for arguments on injunction application for 09.11.2020."

8. On the same day, by a separate order, the application of the respondent under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code was rejected by the learned Trial Court, holding therein that the suit was not barred under Section(s) 70, 129 and 132 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003.

9. The respondent challenged the order of ad interim injunction before the learned Appellate Court in form of the above referred appeal.

10. It is noted that the order dismissing its application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code remained unchallenged.

11. By the Impugned Order, however, the learned Appellate Court dismissed the suit of the petitioner itself, holding that the suit is premature and without any cause of action. The learned Appellate Court in the Impugned Order has observed as under:

"24. Thus, the crux is that the SCN and the charge sheet per se do not give any cause of action and court can interfere only if the disciplina