1 2025:CGHC:5595 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 884 of 2025 1 - Hiradhar Maitri S/o Late Salik Ram Maitri Aged About 57 Years Resident Of Ward No. 11, Noorani Chowk, Than Khamariya, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Zila Shahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Durg Acting In The Premises Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Durg ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Anuja Sharma, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Upadhyay Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 30/01/2025 1. Heard Mr. Anuja Sharma, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. B.P. Sharma, , learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Manish Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent who is appearing RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.02.01 12:19:46 +0530 2 on advance copy. 2. Instant petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:- “10.1. A writ and/ or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue calling for the records from the respondent authorities pertaining to the petitioner's case for its perusal, if deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.2. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of certiorari do issue quashing the impugned order dated 10.1.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent being illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.3.Cost of the proceedings. 10.4. Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially vide notice dated 26.05.2022 he was issued show cause notice and it has been stated that two annual increments is proposed to be withheld from the petitioner, however subsequently vide order dated 10.01.2025 termination order has been passed which is not in accordance with law as earlier this order was not proposed to be passed against the petitioner. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Isolators and Isolators Through its Proprietor Sandhya Mishra Vs. Madhya Pradesh Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limted and Another reported in (2023) 8 SCC 607 in which at para 35 it has been stated as under:- 3 “35.As regards the principles of law applicable to the case, we need not elaborate on various decisions cited at the Bar. Suffice it would be to take note of the decision in UMC Technologies (2021) 2 SCC 551 wherein, the substance of the other relevant decisions has also been duly noticed by this Court while explaining the principles governing such actions of debarment/blacklisting. Therein, this Court, inter alia, underscored the requirement of specific show-cause notice and referred to the settled principles in the following terms:(SCC pp.558-61, paras 13-14 & 16-19) “13. At the outset, it must be noted that it is the first principle of civilised jurisprudence that a person against whom any action is sought to be taken or whose right or interests are being affected should be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The basic principle of natural justice is that before adjudication starts, the authority concerned should give to the affected party a notice of the case against him so that he can defend himself. Such notice should be adequate and the grounds necessitating action and the penalty/action proposed should be mentioned specifically and unambiguously. An order travelling beyond the bounds of notice is impermissible and without jurisdiction to that extent. This Court in Nasir Ahmad v. Custodian General, Evacuee Property, (1980) 3 SCC 1 has held that it is essential for the notice to specify the particular grounds on the basis of which an action is proposed to be taken so as to enable the noticee to answer the case against him. If these conditions are not satisfied, the person cannot be said to have been granted any reasonable opportunity of being heard .....” 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be allowed to make a representation before the authorities concerned as it seems that prima facie an order which is apparently not in accordance with law has been passed and perhaps it would have been rectified by the respondent when the said facts would have been brought before their knowledge. 4 5. For this learned counsel for the respondent who is appearing on advance copy is having no objection and he submits that if the petitioner files an application/representation then the same will be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders will be passed. 6. Since by the impugned order termination order has been passed, it is directed to the petitioner to file an appropriate application/representation before the authorities within five days and in turn the authorities are directed to decide the same within ten days. 7. It is made clear that the petition was not heard on merits. 8. Accordingly, with this observation/s and direction/s this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi