Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 57720 (PNJ)

KULDEEP PARIKH v. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS

CWP/13984/2025 · 2025-05-15

Vinod S Bhardwaj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 122 CWP-13984-2025 Date of decision: 15.05.2025 KULDEEP PARIKH ......Petitioner VERSUS CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ ***** Present: - Mr. Gurwinder Pal Singh, Advocate with Ms. Karamjit Kaur, Advocate for Ms. P.S. Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate and Mr. Teginder Singh, Advocate for the respondent-Bank. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present writ petition is for seeking twin relief i.e. quashing of the Charge Sheet issued on 02.01.2025 as also revocation of the order of suspension dated 21.10.2023, the instant writ petition has been filed. 2. After arguing the matter at some length, Counsel for the petitioner does not press the prayer to the extent of seeking quashing of the charge sheet of 02.01.2025 so as to take all pleas before the competent authority during the course of disciplinary proceedings, he contends that as per the applicable rules, the order of suspension is required to be reviewed by the Review Committee within a period of 90 days and that the same has not been done. He further contends that the admissible subsistence VISHAL SHARMA 2025.05.16 11:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13984-2025 -2- allowance has also not been paid to the petitioner, which becomes payable on expiry of a period of six months of suspension. He contends that the respondents should be directed to present the case before the Review Authority and for consideration of the entitlement of the petitioner for the subsistence allowance as well. 3. He contends that he would be satisfied in case the respondents- Bank is directed to put the case before the Review Authority in relation to the suspension of the petitioner dated 21.10.2023 for passing an appropriate order. 4. Counsel for the respondent has no objection to the same. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of at this juncture with liberty to the petitioner to take all objections and plea of defence before the disciplinary authority in relation to the charge sheet issued on 02.01.2025 and with a direction to the respondents to refer the case of the petitioner to the review Committee pertaining to his suspension and entitlement to the subsistence allowance in terms of the applicable instructions. 5. Let the appropriate decision be taken by respondents within a period of two months of a receipt of certified copy of this order, if not already decided and the admissible benefits, if any, be released within a further period of one month. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) MAY 15, 2025 JUDGE Vishal Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No VISHAL SHARMA 2025.05.16 11:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document