P.Murli Mohan Rao v. The Gen. Man.Dep.Andper.Banking Sbi Andors
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
TN_TIffi HI©HCO^T OP JODICATUREi CHHATTISGARH: BIIASPUR writ Petitlon M'o.T i^C'30 /gpoi 6.
PETITIONER V P. Mutli Mohan Rao, aged about 38 years, S/o Madan Moliaa Rao at present worklng as ^..-""".jif^ AsslstantManager, State '1""^''.,'\^-*1>*"*- Banlc of- Indla, Haln-Brandh, Bilaspur (Chbattlsgarh) '•^SSP.
y^'^^y^'
.-^OO^ ...•••'""",-\fT.> ^e'•""--'"
y^:'
^"
Versus
1, The Seneral Manager, Departmental and Personal Banklng (^>pellate Authorlty) State Bank o£ ladl.a. Local '
Head OffJ.ee, Btaooal.
(M.P.) RESPOmBNTS
2. Itte Dy.General Maaager, (Disclpllaary Authorlty), State Sanle of Iraaia, Reglonal Offiee, Bilaspur (Chhattlscrarh) -^ses--: - .- - .
.
- ......
.
WRXT PETTTION CTNDER ARTICtES 226/227 QF THE CONSTITOTION OF INDI&.
^:ifNi^i*3Bfi plStiicB
yy t-/.^ ^ ^yv ^ u HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SB: HON'BLE SHRI NAVIN SINHA. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Writ Petition No. 2030/2001 P. Murli Mohan Rao PETITIQNER
Versus
The General .aBfathgf Manager and RESPONDENTS WBrBBETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF5lTiHE;;iSQNSTITUTION OF INDIA ' wy..y".,, W\ppearance:
^ Shri Vishnu Koshft Shri B.D.Guru, for the Petitioner.
e Respondents.
AMJlABsCiRDER ,,.ffiEC 33%il%.2014) NAVIN SINHA. ACTlN©©desS5sw |cj viifvi 1.
Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondents. 2.
Pursuant to a memo of charge the Petitioner was subjected to departrnental proceedings. The Inquiry Officer exonerated him by report dated 6.6.1999. Asecond show cause notice for a difference of opinion was given to him on 12.6.1999.
He submitted his reply on 17.6.1999. Punishment of Censure was then passed. 3.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that while Departmental Proceedings were pending the Petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Scale-11 which was kept in sealed cover.
|^!iBf^,1l,ii..lO!(it.....f!t-W..
WP 2030/2001 The tenure of censure has expired and directions may be given to open the sealed cover.
4.
The Court does not find any infirmity in the Departmental Proceedings for the manner in which the Respondents have proceeded by giving a second show cause for a differehce of opinion and then ordered censure.
5.
The Petitioner is stated to have filed appeal against the same also unsLi©ci|S8JiBI|igst!raffiIoF|i!eB|M?||tBinishment warrants no interfeleofee.
au!.:fs',il,:,:.
y'
Learned CounsglJMffl'ie^KesRondents submits ffip"i|ithe period of censure has expirea'fi|ff|tj§|y|]sefor promotion was kept in sealed cover, it may be diredl!gQp:is"t5pB6pened subject to any other issues and/or proceedings that3l'i8S,BKRending or in which orders may have been passed.
':i4!£:::.l'<:s?s:!''';i.^!iL'
•d^^sed in terms of the !ast submission ETjjF 7.
The writ appli made on behalfofthe Respondents.
Sd/- Ag. Chief Justice sunita