HC Rejects Bank Officer’s Repeated Challenges to Disciplinary Inquiry; Reduces Penalty Costs

Harish Sharma, an Officer Scale-II of Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, faced departmental proceedings based on charges ranging from insubordination and procedural irregularities to workplace misconduct. After suspension, an enquiry was conducted under the Bank’s Service Regulations, culminating in adverse findings and his termination. Sharma filed multiple writ petitions alleging mala fides, bias, denial of documents, and victimization due to his position in the employees’ union.

In W.P. No. 4810/2025, he sought quashing of the charge-sheet and a court-monitored enquiry. The Single Judge refused to interfere with the pending inquiry but directed that he be given full opportunity. Sharma again approached the Court via W.P. No. 10975/2025 after conclusion of the enquiry and his termination, once more seeking to quash the proceedings. The Single Judge dismissed this second petition with costs of ₹50,000, holding it to be repetitive, premature, and an abuse of process.

Sharma appealed both orders. He appeared in person, reiterating allegations of bias and denial of documents. The Bank countered that due process was followed, all documents were supplied, and the appellant bypassed the proper appellate remedy under service regulations.

Issue Before Court: Whether the Court should interfere with disciplinary proceedings both pending and concluded on allegations of mala fides, procedural irregularity, and denial of documents, and whether the Single Judge rightly imposed costs for repetitive litigation.

High Decision: The Division Bench dismissed both appeals, affirming that courts ordinarily do not intervene at the stage of charge-sheet or enquiry unless jurisdictional or procedural violations are shown. Citing settled principles, the Bench held that the Single Judge correctly declined interference in the ongoing enquiry and rightly rejected the second petition after termination, since the appellant had an alternative statutory remedy.

The Court found no evidence of bias, denial of reasonable opportunity, or illegality in the enquiry. Mere allegations of mala fide without proof could not justify judicial intervention. The Bench recognized that the appellant repeatedly filed writ petitions at intermediary stages, misconceiving the scope of Article 226 and misusing the process of law. However, taking a lenient view, it reduced the costs imposed by the Single Judge from ₹50,000 to ₹5,000.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below