Suit challenging show-cause notice, disciplinary inquiry maintainable but scope of interference is highly limited: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a suit challenging a show-cause notice or a disciplinary inquiry is maintainable, however, the scope of interference in such suits is highly limited (Virender Singh vs Delhi State Cooperative Bank)..The judgement to this effect was passed by a single-judge of Justice Navin Chawla. .In the present case, the petitioner had filed a suit seeking permanent & mandatory injunction restraining the respondent, Delhi State Cooperative Bank, from initiating/continuing any enquiry/departmental proceedings against him..The petition was directed against an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Courts dismissing the suit as pre-mature and without any cause of action..The Senior Civil Judge was dealing with the defendant's appeal against the ad interim injunction granted by the Civil Judge in petitioner's favour. .The petitioner contended that the Senior Civil Judge i.e. the appellate court should not have decided the issue of maintainability of the suit as the scope of the appeal before it was confined only to the ad-interim injunction grated by the Civil Judge i.e the trial court..The respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the appellate court was empowered to consider the issue of the maintainability of the suit in terms of Section 107 read with Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code. .It was also argued that the appellate court rightly concluded that the issuance of show-cause notice and/or charge sheet per se did not give rise to any cause of action as it did not amount to adverse order which affected the rights of any party..The Court noted that the respondent had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC before the trial court, challenging the maintainability of the suit in view of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003. .The application was dismissed and the order gained finality as no challenge was preferred by the respondent, the Court added..The Court thus concluded the appellate court acted beyond the scope of the appeal when it directed the listing of the appeal for arguments on the maintainability of the suit itself..Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Court further observed that there was a distinction between the maintainability of a suit challenging show-cause notice as against the scope of interference by the Court in such a suit. .While the suit may be maintainable, the scope of interference by the court is highly limited, the High Court stated. ."While the suit may be maintainable, the scope of interference by the Court is highly limited. It would be for the petitioner to satisfy the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court as to whether the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of such limited scope of interference. However, the suit could not have been said to be not maintainable by the learned Appellate Court when it was exercising its jurisdiction only against the ad interim order of injunction granted by the learned Trial Court during the pendency of the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code filed by the petitioner.".Since the appellate court passed the order in excess of its jurisdiction, the remedy of the petitioner, therefore, could not be relegated to a remedy of appeal, the Court further ruled. .In view of the above, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the learned Appellate Court, to be adjudicated on merit..Advocates Amit George, Nitesh Mehra, Ankit Kumar, Amita Singh appeared for the Petitioner. Respondent was represented by Advocates Anand Yadav, Pradyumn Rao..[Read Order]