Advocates:
['GARY MUKHOPADHAYAY', 'A G', 'JITENDRA SHRIVASTAVA', 'UTTARA SHRIVASTAVAPANKAJ CHAUDHARY']

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Writ Petition (S) No. 2590 of 2021

1. Devnarayan Sharma, S/o Late Shri Lakhanlal Sharma, Aged About 64 Years

Retired As Branch Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank, Main Branch,

Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Cooperative

Societies, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. District Cooperative Central Hbank Maryadit, Bilaspur, Through Its Chief

Executive Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur,

Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

3. Chief Executive Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur,

Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

----Respondents

For Petitioner

: Shri Gary Mukhopadhayay , Advocate.

For State

:

Shri Amrito das, Addl. A.G.

For Respondents No. 2 & 3 :

the Shri Prafull N. Bharat Sr. Adv. along

with Shri Jitendra Shrivastava Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

Order On Board

18.06.2021

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is only to the

extent of inaction on the part of the respondents in not opening the

recommendation of the DPC pertaining to the petitioner in-respect-of

the promotion to the post of Additional Chief Accountant.

2. According to the petitioner, the recommendation of the DPC has been

placed in a seal cover in view of a departmental enquiry which was

pending against the petitioner and the departmental enquiry now has

got completed and the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report

exonerating the petitioner from the charges leveled against him. That

2

the Enquiry report was submitted as early as in the year 2018,

therefore it is presumed that the disciplinary authority has also

accepted the verdict of the Enquiry Officer. In the said circumstances,

the seal cover in-respect-of the DPC pertaining to the petitioner should

be opened.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 & 3 however

submits that it is a case where the petitioner on an earlier occasion was

granted promotion to the post of Additional Chief Accountant, which

was subsequently found out to be erroneously granted and the said

promotion was subsequently recalled which was challenged by the

petitioner before the different forums under the Corporative Societies

Act uptill the stage of Tribunal. Thereafter, the matter has now come to

the High Court vide WP(S) No. 5148/2020, therefore the present writ

petition also needs to be connected with that case.

4. Perusal of the records would show that the aforesaid Writ Petition

which the petitioner has preferred is in-respect-of altogether different

cause of action and the present writ petition that he has filed is for

promotion from the present post i.e. the petitioner is holding and

therefore the out-come of the said writ petition would not have any

bearing on opening of seal cover in-respect-of recommendation made

by the DPC pertaining to the petitioner without expressing any opinion

on the merit of the case taking into consideration the enquiry report

submitted by the Enquiry Officer exonerating the petitioner from the

allegations/charges that was leveled against him.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition at this juncture can be disposed off

directing the respondents No. 2 & 3 to take immediate step in

3

accordance with Rules governing the field so far as opening of seal

cover pertaining to the recommendation made by the DPC held on

16.11.2017 dealing with the petitioner in-respect-of promotion to the

post of Additional Chief Accountant is concerned. Since the petitioner

stands retired on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.09.2018

and an appropriate decision should be taken in-respect-of the benefit

that can be extended to the petitioner on the date the DPC was

convened i.e. on 16.11.20