Kerala High Court
Selvin Abraham vs Punjab & Sind Bank on 7 June, 2012
Bench: C.N.Ramachandran Nair, C.K.Abdul Rehim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/3RD ASWINA 1934
RP.No. 757 of 2012 () IN WA/1549/2006
--------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA.1549/2006 DATED 07-06-2012
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SELVIN ABRAHAM
KANDATHIL HOUSE, MOONNILAVU P.O.,
PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SELVIN ABRAHAM (PARTY-IN-PERSON)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------------------------
1. PUNJAB & SIND BANK
CENTRAL OFFICE, BANK HOUSE, 21,
RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. GENERAL MANAGER
REVIEWING AUTHORITY, PUNJAB & SIND BANK
CENTRAL OFFICE, BANK HOUSE, 21,
RAJENRA PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110001
3. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (P)
APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PUNJAB & SIND BANK
CENTRAL OFFICE, BANK HOUSE, 21,
RAJENRA PLACE, NEW DELHI 110001
4. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (ZONAL HEAD)
AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,
PUNJAB & SIND BANK, ZONAL OFFICE, SPENCER TOWERS
MOUNT ROAD, MADRAS- 600001.
5. A.K.OHRI, MANAGER, PUNJAB & SIND BANK,
OPPANAKKARA STREET, COIMBATORE.
R BY ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.)
R BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE
R BY ADV. SMT.MARIAM MATHAI
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-09-2012,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BP
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ.
-------------------------------
RP.NO. 757 of 2012 in WA.1549/2006
---------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2012
ORDER
Ramachandran Nair, J.
Review petitioner was dismissed from service by the 1st respondent while he was serving as Assistant Manager at Coimbatore. Challenge against the dismissal was not entertained by the learned Single Judge for the reason that this court has no jurisdiction. When the writ appeal filed against the judgment was taken up, nobody appeared for the appellant and we therefore perused the judgment and dismissed the writ appeal assuming that the entire facts relied on by the learned Single Judge are correct. However the appellant has filed review petition and personally appeared on various posting dates. The respondent took time for producing the enquiry details as claimed by the review petitioner so that this court's jurisdiction could be considered in detail. Today when the matter was taken up the 1st respondent seeks time. We do not find any justification for prolonging the review petition any longer RP.757 /2012 in WPC.1549/2006 2 because by reviewing the judgment one more opportunity will be given to the review petitioner to establish the facts which are not fully considered by the learned Single Judge nor by us by deciding the writ appeal.
2. Having regard to the serious consequences suffered by the appellant on technical grounds, we feel a detailed hearing of the writ appeal is required. We therefore allow the review petition by recalling the judgment of the writ appeal and direct the registry to post the writ appeal for hearing on 17.10.2012. The review petitioner is free to argue on the jurisdiction of this court with reference to the facts and records. Since the appellant is appearing in person, registry will post the case in the petition list before the bench for giving date posting to the appellant .
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE
pmn/
RP.757 /2012 in WPC.1549/2006 3
RP.757 /2012 in WPC.1549/2006 4