Sri Jiban Krishna Banik v. Tripura Gramin Bank and 2 ors
WP(C)/183/2023 · 2025-03-13
Arindam Lodh
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 672 (TRI) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 672 (TRI) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
WP(C) No.183 of 2023
Sri Jiban Krishna Banik, son of Late Rakhal Chandra Banik, resident of Town Pratapgarh, Central Road Extension, P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-East Agartala, District-West Tripura, PIN-799001.
….Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. Tripura Gramin Bank, a Government undertaking, represented by its Chairman, having his office at Abhoynagaar, Agartala, District-West Tripura, PIN-799005.
2. The Chairman, Tripura Gramin Bank, a Government undertaking, represented by its Chairman, having his office at Abhoynagaar, Agartala, District-West Tripura, PIN-799005.
3. The Board of Directors, Tripura Gramin Bank, Abhoynagar, Agartala, District-West Tripura, PIN-799005.
….Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sankar Kr. Deb, Sr. Advocate
Mr. P. Debbarma, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Saha, Advocate
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Order
13/03/2025
Heard Mr. Sankar Kr. Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Tripura Gramin Bank. During the course of argument it comes to fore that the petitioner has not preferred statutory appeal as provided under Regulation 49 of the Tripura Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010(for short, Regulations, 2010). The respondent-Tripura Gramin Bank has specifically pleaded in their counter affidavit “…that the Petitioner did not prefer any Departmental Appeal following the Provision 49 of Tripura Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation, 2010 before the Appellate Authority of the Bank (i.e. the Board of Director) against the Final
Order on Disciplinary Proceedings dated-24/11/2022 passed by the Disciplinary Authority of the Respondent Bank…”.
I have gone through the Regulation 49 of the said Regulations, 2010. It clearly lays down that:-
“49. Right to appeal.– (1) An officer or employee may prefer an appeal against any order passed under these regulations to the Appellate Authority mentioned in regulation 50 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of such order. (2) The Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal and pass order preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the appeal.” Regulation 50 lays down as under:
“50. Appellate authority. – An appeal shall lie before. – (i) the Board, where the Chairman is the Competent Authority; and (ii) the Chairman, where any other officer is the Competent Authority.”
Since the statutory appeal is not exhausted, in my opinion, the instant writ petition should be dismissed in limine. According, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.
JUDGE
Snigdha SAIKAT KAR Digitally signed by SAIKAT KAR Date: 2025.03.13 16:28:05 +05'30'