Jammu, Jan 05: In case No. LPA No 285/2025 in WP(C) No. 3233/2023 CM No. 7516-7517/2025 titled Arti Baru vs UT of J&K and ors. after hearing DB of HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE ORDERED as under:-
01. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant- Arti Baru, happens to be a Bank Employee-Chief Manager, who was placed under suspension and issued a charge-sheet.
He submits that although vide impugned order and judgment, the Writ Court set aside the charge-sheet for being defective but yet upheld the suspension and granted liberty to the respondent-Bank to reframe the charges which, he asserts is apparently unsustainable, given the evidence of bias and procedural lapses.
02. It is submitted that under Rule 2.3 and 2.5 of Chapter I of the Recruitment, Discipline, Conduct & Appeal Rules 1995,( for short ‘the Rules’) the Board of Directors is the disciplinary Authority.
Whereas, the order of suspension was issued by the existing Executive Manager. And it is not in dispute that there was no valid delegation of power either. Further, Rule 3 and 4 of Chapter III of the Rules postulates preliminary enquiry to establish prima facia case before the suspension order is passed. But concededly no such procedure was followed.
03. It is urged that in fact the appellant had submitted a formal complaint on October 09, 2023, after she was publicly humiliated in a meeting. Whereupon she was served with three show cause notices within a span of three weeks.
And, the Enquiry Officer was appointed on November 16, 2023, i.e., five weeks before December 21, 2023, on which date the actual charge sheet was issued.
It is submitted that the initial enquiry report dated January 01, 2024 exonerated the appellant and the respondent-Authority instead of accepting the said report, transferred the Enquiry Officer and she, too, was served with a show cause notice.
Whereafter a fresh enquiry was ordered. He asserts that exfacie the appellant has been victimized. And, even though as indicated above, the Writ Court set aside the charge-sheet but, yet for wholly untenable reasons, upheld the order of suspension.
It is urged, for, the appellant was suspended over two years ago (December 21, 2023), she continues to serve.
04. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank prays for a short accommodation to seek instructions and argue the matter.
05. While issuing notice on November 25, 2025, this Court had stayed a part of the impugned order and judgment vide which the Authorities were granted liberty to issue a fresh charge-sheet.
As prayed by learned counsel for the respondents, the proceedings are deferred to March 18, 2026.
But, in the meanwhile, the operation of order dated December 21, 2023 whereby the appellant was placed under suspension shall remain stayed till the adjourned date.
06. Adjourned to March 18, 2026
|