IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 14648/2026 Decided on: 26.08.2026 Dhruv Mohan Kapil …Petitioner Versus H.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Vishal Bindra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No.3. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs: - “i. That this Writ Petition may kindly be allowed and a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or directions may be issued and the Impugned Order dated 04.08.2026 (Annexure P-1) to the extent it directs the transfer/posting of the Petitioner to Branch Office Bagachanogi may be quashed and set aside; 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 ii. That pass appropriate directions to the Appellate Authorities to consider and pass appropriate order on the interim relief sought by the petitioner against the order in shortest time bound manner. iii. That a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued directing the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to continue at his present posting at Branch Office Kaulanwala Toba, Tehsil Sh. Naina Devi Ji, District Bilaspur, HP pending final disposal of the Appeal filed by the Petitioner before the Board of Directors; iv. That any appropriate writ or directions may be issued restraining the Respondents from giving effect to or implementing the Impugned Order dated 04.08.2026 in any manner, including the withholding of increments and the transfer to Branch Office Bagachanogi, pending disposal of the Appeal before the Respondents; v. That the Board of Directors (Respondent No. 2) may be directed to decide the Petitioner's Statutory Appeal and the accompanying stay application expeditiously, preferably within a time-bound period.” 2. In a case of fraud and embezzlement of funds, after initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, the respondents issued an office order dated 04.08.2026, holding the petitioner guilty of major misconduct and imposed the penalty of withholding of five increments with cumulative effect. Petitioner was also barred from promotion to the next higher post for a period of five 3 years. In terms of the order, petitioner was to be posted at Branch Office Bagachanogi with immediate effect. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has a remedy of statutory appeal against the impugned order, which he has availed by preferring statutory appeal under Rule 64 of the Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Employees Service (Terms of Employment and Working Conditions) Rules, 1979, which reads as under:- “CHAPTER-14 APPEALS 64 (a) Except in the case of a character roll warning consure or fine an appeal shall lie against every order awarding a punishment to the competent appellate authority shown in the table below. Rank of appellant employee Stoppage of increment of promotion Reversion Dismissal or Termination of discharge 1. In Special Grades and Grade-I RCS RCS RCS 2. In Grades II, III and IV BOD BOD BOD 3. Subordinate Employee Managing Director Managing Director Managing Director (b) Every appeal shall be presented to the appellate authority prescribed in these rules within 30 days of the date on which the order appealed against was communicated to the party affected by the order. No appeal shall be entertained after the above period of limitation of 30 days. An appeal shall be deemed to be properly presented if it is given to the head of the office where the employee was working.” 4 The petitioner has invoked the above Rule and preferred his appeal against the order dated 04.08.2026. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that along with the appeal, the petitioner has also moved a separate application for grant of interim relief against the impugned order dated 04.08.2026, which, apart from imposing punishment upon the petitioner, also transfers him to Branch Office Bagachanogi with immediate effect. Placing reliance upon Dr. Sudhir Chandra Neogy vs. Calcutta Tramways Company Limited2 learned Counsel further submits that in view of 30-day limitation period provided under Rule 64 for preferring an appeal, the impugned order dated 04.08.2026 could not have been brought into force with immediate effect. Therefore, it is required to be stayed pending consideration of the appeal. 3. Since the petitioner has already invoked the statutory remedy of appeal before the Board of Directors of the respondent-Bank, along with an application seeking stay of the impugned order dated 04.08.2026, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the Appellate Authority to consider and pass appropriate order on the interim relief sought by the petitioner against the impugned order within 2 AIR 1960 Calcutta 396 5 seven days from today, in accordance with law. Efforts be also made to expedite the hearing of the appeal. The instant petition to stand disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge August 26, 2026 R.Atal.