Patna High Court - Orders
Soni Kumari vs The Union Bank Of India & Ors on 22 November, 2016
Author: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Bench: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7971 of 2014
Along with
Interlocutory Application No. 8868 of 2016
======================================================
Soni Kumari
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The Union Bank of India & Ors.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kaushalesh Choudhary, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Nishi Nath Ojha, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL ORDER
3 22-11-2016Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Re.: Interlocutory Application No. 8868 of 2016 The Interlocutory Application has been filed for amending the writ application to the extent that the decision of the respondent-Union Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank'), as communicated under Letter dated 29.08.2015 by the Chief Manager (IR), be quashed.
The writ application has been filed for a direction to the Bank to take appropriate action against respondent no. 6 for having furnished false information with regard to his marital status.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent no. 6, who is an employee in the Bank, was married in the year 1996 and out of the said wedlock, there are two sons, and Patna High Court CWJC No.7971 of 2014 (3) dt.22-11-2016 2/3 one of them is also employed in the said Bank. It was submitted that suppressing of these facts, respondent no. 6 again married the petitioner in the year 2009. Learned counsel submitted that under the relevant rules, respondent no. 6 is liable to be proceeded against. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent no. 6, at the time of entering service of the Bank, had also suppressed the fact that he was married and, thus, this also is suppression of fact, which is a gross misconduct. For such proposition, learned counsel relied upon Clauses 2, 3(a) and 5(m) of the Memoranda of Settlements dated 10th April 2002/27th May 2002 on Disciplinary Action & Procedure Therefor for Workmen.
Learned counsel submitted that he has been intimated by the Chief Manager (I.R.) of the Bank under Letter dated 29.08.2015 that the complaint cannot be taken up as it is a domestic issue. Such order is sought to be assailed in the present Interlocutory Application.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the communication dated 29.08.2015 of the Chief Manager (I.R.) of the Bank shall be deemed to be impugned in the main writ application.
Interlocutory Application No. 8868 of 2016 stands allowed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7971 of 2014 (3) dt.22-11-20163/3
Re.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7971 of 2014 In view of facts being brought on record, the Court, prima facie and tentatively, is of the opinion that the respondent Bank has power under the relevant rules/memoranda of settlement and it is obliged to take action and the impugned communication dated 29.08.2016 may amount to shirking of responsibility or in the alternative, it may indicate collusion of the Bank authorities to save respondent no. 6. Either way, the inaction of the Bank does not seem to be justified.
At this juncture, learned counsel for the Bank submitted that he may be given one more opportunity to take appropriate actions and to file affidavit with regard to action taken by the Bank in the matter.
Accordingly, as prayed for by learned counsel for the Bank, the matter be listed on 19th December, 2016.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Sujit/-
U