G.M. Lodha, J. - (1.) THE petitioner Shri G.R. Bhati, Branch Manager of the Ganganagar Kendriya Sahkari Bank Ltd., Sri -Ganganagar, has filed this writ petition against the show -cause notice served on him by the respondent -Administrator of the Bank. The show -cause notice annexure -8 is reproduced as under: THE GANGANAGAR KENDRIYA SAHKARI BANK LTD.SHRI GANGANAGAR No. F(3)(141) Estt./General Dated 10 -1 -1981 From: Administrator (Collector)The Gadganagar Kendriya Sahkari Bank Ltd.Sri Ganganagar. To, Shri Gurudayal Ram Bhati, Br. Manager (Under suspension)The Ganganagar Kendriya Sahkari Bank Ltd.Sri Ganganagar. Sub: Disciplinary action. Ref: Charge sheet No. 9080 dated 12 -4 -80 An enquiry was conducted to enquire into certain allegations framed against you on perusal of the Enquiry Report the undersigned has provisionally decided to dismiss you from the services of the Bank. Before any final action is taken an opportunity is given to you to make a representation in writing or in person, if any, against the proposed action.
(2.) YOUR reply to this notice should reach not later than 15 days from the receipt of this notice. Sd/ -Administrator,The Kendriya Sahkari Bank Ltd.Sri Ganganagar. A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondent counsel Mr. Calla that the writ application is pre -mature and should not be entertained at this stage. 2. In brief the facts giving rise to this writ petition relates to the charge -sheet served on the petitioner for various omissions and commissions. The report of Enquiry Officer, annexure 9 is interpreted to be a report of exoneration by Mr. B.L. Sharma but contested to be so by Mr. Calla. According to Mr. Sharma the Enquiry Officer exonerated him of all the charges. But Mr. Calla asserts that the Enquiry Officer has held him guilty though the language used may be not equivocal. Mr. Sharma's contention is that the Administrator has not been validly appointed, that the Enquiry Officer having exonerated the petitioner, the Administrator could not have punished him without first recording a note of dissent and serving a copy of it on the petitioner as contemplated by Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules and that Rules 16 land 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules are ultra vires being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
(3.) MR . Calla's objection is that the petitioner can take all these objections before the Administrator and thereafter if an adverse order is passed then only he gets a legal right to challenge the same before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and that too after exhausting the remedy of appeals and revisions provided under the Rules. It was also argued that Rules 16 and 17 are intra vires and not ultra -vires.;