Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
K.C. Bhardwaj – Appellant
Versus
Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court-ordered bod waiver enables promotion (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. bod resolves to drop ongoing inquiry charges (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. parties contest unconfirmed resolution validity (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. bye-law 72(2) requires bod confirmation (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. confirmation allows bod to rectify errors (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. benefits subject to inquiry outcome (Para 27 , 28) |
Judgment :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Petitioner herein, who at present is discharging his duties as Deputy General Manager (in short “DGM”) in Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved by the non-implementation of the decision of Board of Directors (in short “BOD”) dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure P-15), whereby it came to be resolved that ongoing disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner, be immediately stopped and related charges be dropped.
2. Quint-essential facts, as emerge from the pleadings, adduced on record by the respective parties are that on 29.09.2022, meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (in short “DPC”) for promotion of the petitioner along with other eligible candidates to the post
BOD resolutions to drop disciplinary charges in cooperative banks require confirmation in next meeting per bye-laws; non-confirmation allows rectification, rendering unconfirmed decision non-binding.
Disciplinary proceedings were upheld as valid; delay and procedural flaws were insufficient to overturn dismissal for misconduct.
Departmental proceedings must be initiated by the appointing authority, and failure to comply with this requirement renders the proceedings void, violating principles of natural justice.
Departmental proceedings initiated without the appointing authority's approval are void, and failure to provide access to relevant documents violates natural justice principles.
Charge memorandum issued without prior disciplinary authority approval is non est; post-facto ratification invalid where statute mandates prior approval before issuance.
Disciplinary authority cannot order de novo inquiry or supplementary charge-sheet after initial inquiry report without sharing it with charged officer, violating procedural rules.
The main legal point established is the scope of judicial review in departmental enquiry proceedings, emphasizing the principles of natural justice, the authority of the disciplinary officers, and th....
The disciplinary authority must provide cogent reasons for ordering a de novo inquiry; failure in this regard vitiates subsequent penalties, while waiver through participation in inquiry bars later c....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
