Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Virender Singh - Appellant
Versus
Delhi State Co-operative Bank Ltd. - Respondent
CM(M) 70 of 2021
Decided On : 06-04-2021
A Show Cause Notice does not provide a cause of action; however, suits challenging disciplinary actions remain maintainable if principles of natural justice are implicated in subsequent stages of inquiry.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 - Suit dismissed as premature and without cause of action - Appellate Court erroneously held that a Show Cause Notice does not give any cause of action, while principles of natural justice must be considered at later stages of inquiry - Appeal against interim injunction should not prematurely dismiss the suit itself. (Paras 11, 22, 26)
(B) Natural Justice - Enforcement against disciplinary action - The issuance of a Show Cause Notice cannot generally be a subject of legal challenge; however, the suit may be maintainable if the principles of natural justice are violated at later inquiry stages. (Paras 22, 25)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the dismissal of his suit against the issuance of a Show Cause Notice and charge sheet, which the Appellate Court dismissed, holding it to be premature without cause of action, thereby exceeding its jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
The Appellate Court's dismissal of the suit was set aside, reviving the appeal for adjudication on merit.
Issues: Whether the suit challenging the Show Cause Notice and subsequent charge sheet was maintainable despite being deemed premature.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while a mere Show Cause Notice does not by itself provide a cause of action, the suit remains maintainable, and natural justice considerations apply at later stages of inquiry.
Result: Petition allowed, dismissal set aside, matter remanded to the Appellate Court.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to initial court order (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding maintainability (Para 3 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. petitioner's suit requests and injunction application (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's authority and limitations on suit maintainability (Para 11 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. distinction in challenge scope of show cause notice (Para 24 , 26) |
| 6. remanding for merit adjudication (Para 27 , 28) |
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
