HADOTI KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK Vs. GOVINDLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition arises out of judgment dated 15.10.96 of the Civil Judge (SD), Jhalawar affirming the temporary injunction granted by the Munsif, Jhalawar by his judgment dated 12.10.93, whereby the defendant No. 1, 3 and 4 (present petitioners) were directed to maintain status quo in the departmental inquiry in respect of the plaintiff till final disposal of the suit.

(2.) The facts relevant for disposal of this revision petition, briefly stated, are that the plaintiff (respondent No. 1) filed a civil suit for permanent injunction and for declaring ex-parte departmental inquiry as illegal and void ab initio and meanwhile for staying these proceedings. It has been averred therein that by lodging FIR on 19.12.90 and getting him arrested from 13.5.91 to 21.5.91 in criminal case arising out of FIR No. 260/90 lodged at police station Kotwali Jhalawar for offences under Sections 420, 379 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code the defendants who are officers of the Hadoti Gramin Bank Kota after suspending him issued charge sheet on 7.1.92 for the self same allegations made in criminal case, referred to above and in pursuance of the charge-sheet, the disciplinary action was initiated against him, wherein P.R. Sharma (defendant No. 2) was appointed as Inquiry Officer who, according to the plaintiff bore animosity as would be evident from the fact that he rejected plaintiff's application dated 12.6.93 by an ex parte order passed on 16.7.93. An application for grant of temporary injunction was also moved by the plaintiff under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure reiterating the averments stated in the plaint.

(3.) It has also been averred in the suit as also T.I. application that criminal case has also been pending before the Judicial Magistrate Jhalawar. Temporary injunction out of which this revision petition has arisen, was sought on the ground inter alia that the allegations as also subject matter in criminal case and the charge-sheet under departmental inquiry against the plaintiff are not only similar as also identical but also self same facts and circumstances based for his single posting period i.e. from 2.2.89 to 9.8.90 when he was working as clerk-cum cashier in the defendant's bank, inasmuch as the defendants are biased with him (plaintiff) thereby are adamant to get the departmental inquiry concluded by terminating his service in a hot haste manner and duly actuated with malice, without awaiting the outcome of the criminal case. The plaintiff's cause further was that in case the departmental inquiry is not stayed, it would prejudice to his defence not only in the criminal case but also in the disciplinary proceedings and thereby it would result in violation of principles of natural justice.