# Kant Kumar Singh v. Gomti Gramin Bank and another - **Citation:** (2002) 1 ILRA 150 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2001-12-19 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19658 of 2001 - **Bench:** M. Katju, R.B. Misra - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kant-kumar-singh-v-gomti-gramin-bank-and-another-39764 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Rules of the Court- Rule 7 - Chapter XXII- the order dismissing the first writ petition operates as res-judicata between the parties and the person against whom the order has been passed has got no right to file second petition on the same facts. (Held in para 14). Cases relied on- 1995 (3) SCC P. 757 AIR 1986 SC P.391 1990 (1) AWC P.732 I am of the view that the petitioners are guilty of concealment and misstatement of material facts, violation of orders passed by this Court, violation of Rule 7 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court, abuse of process of Court and they have not approached this Court with clean hands as they have been attempting to usurp the money of the Bank. ## Text INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002 150 taken is that of the approval of suspension till the matter of punishment is finally approved or disapproved by the Selection Board. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 26th July, 2001 deserves to be quashed so far as it directs the payment of salary to the petitioner. Petitioner shall continue to be suspended. He will be entitled for subsistence allowance. 5. In view of what has been stated above, the relief that can be granted to the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 26th July, 2001 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh is quashed. Smt. Manju Singh, District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh shall pay Rs. 2500/- as costs to the petitioner. 6. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is disposed of finally. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2001 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE R.B. MISRA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19658 of 2001 Kant Kumar Singh ...Petitioner Versus Gomti Gramin Bank and another ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Bheem Singh Sri Ashook Khare Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A.K. Singh S.C. Constitution of India- Article 226- No absolute legal proposition can be laid down that if a misconduct is alleged to be committed subsequent to a selection then that misconduct cannot be the basis for with-holding the promotion- Appointment/promotion can certainly be held up until the person is cleared of the charge. Held- (Para-4) Case referred to- 1998 SCC (L&S) Page 884 The petitioner is an officer in a bank where the highest standard of discipline and integrity has to be maintained. The allegation of embezzlements is subsequent to the meeting of the selection committee, in our opinion, the petitioner's promotion must be held up until he is cleared of that charge. (Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has claimed that he has been selected for promotion from officer scale- 1 to officer scale 2 in the respondent bank. It appears that subsequently a charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner making allegation of embezzlement of Rs.1,22,000/-. In our opinion, until and unless the petitioner is exonerated in the enquiry there is no question of his promotion particularly, when the petitioner is an officer in bank where the highest degree of discipline and integrity is required to be maintained in order to maintain public confidence in the bank. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the selection committee held its meeting prior to the memorandum which has been issued to the petitioner and he has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. 1All] Kant Kumar Singh V. Gomti Gramin Bank and another 151 Sudha Salhan 1998 S.C.C. (L&S) 884, copy of which is Annexure 17 to the petition. On the strength of this decision, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's name could not have been kept in sealed cover as the memorandum was given subsequent to the D.P.C. In our opinion, the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court is distinguishable. No absolute legal proposition can be laid down that if a misconduct is alleged to be committed subsequent to a selection then that misconduct cannot be the basis for withholding the promotion. Take for an example of a case where an employee is selected for promotion but he commits murder before he could get appointment/promotion order. In our opinion, in such cases the appointment/ promotion can certainly be held up until the person is cleared of the charge. 4. In the present case the petitioner is an officer in bank where highest standard of discipline and integrity has to be maintained. The allegation of embezzlement is subsequent to the meeting of the selection committee in our opinion, the petitioner's promotion must be held up until he is cleared of that charge. 5. In the circumstances of the case we dispose of this petition with the direction to the authority concerned that the enquiry against the petitioner must be completed preferably within two months of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned in accordance with law. If the petitioner is exonerated in the enquiry he may be promoted. The petitioner will cooperate in the enquiry. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD DECEMBER 20, 2001 BEFORE THE HON'BLE R.H. ZAIDI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41020 of 2001 M/s Gokul Dairy and others ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. through the District Magistrate, Allahabad and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Shri Bushra Maryam Shri K.P. Agarwal Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. Shri Pankaj Bhatia Rules of the Court- Rule 7 - Chapter XXII- the order dismissing the first writ petition operates as res-judicata between the parties and the person against whom the order has been passed has got no right to file second petition on the same facts. (Held in para 14). Cases relied on- 1995 (3) SCC P. 757 AIR 1986 SC P.391 1990 (1) AWC P.732 I am of the view that the petitioners are guilty of concealment and misstatement of material facts, violation of orders passed by this Court, violation of Rule 7 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court, abuse of process of Court and they have not approached this Court with clean hands as they have been attempting to usurp the money of the Bank. (Delivered by Hon'ble R.H. Zaidi, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Pankaj Bhatia, Advocate,