Sri Kotiganahally Chandru vs The Chariman on 18 August, 2017

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Kotiganahally Chandru vs The Chariman on 18 August, 2017

Bench: A.S.Bopanna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF AUGUST, 2017

                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA

     WRIT PETITION NO.11817/2016 (GM-Res)

BETWEEN:

SRI KOTIGANAHALLY CHANDRU
S/O SANAGAIAH
DABBE POST BELUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573115
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
                                     ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI PRAMOD R, ADV.)


AND:

1.   THE CHARIMAN
     KAVERI GRAMEENA BANL,
     HEAD OFFICE NUMBERCA 20,
     VIJAYANAGARA 2ND STAGE,
     MYSORE-570017

2.   THE DICIPLINARY AUTHORITY
     AD GENERAL MANAGER
     KAVERI GRAMEENA BANK
     HEAD OFFICE NO.C.A.-20
     VIJAYANAGAR, 2ND STAGE,
     MYSORE-570017

                                     ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T P MUTHANNA, ADV. FOR R1)
                            -2-


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ANNEX-D DATED 10.02.2016 PASSED BY THE
CHAIRMAN AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY OF KAVERI
GRAMEENA BANK I.E., R-1; DIRECT TO GIVE PERMISSION
TO THE PETITIONER TO APPOINT LEGAL PRACTITIONER
IN THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY R-2 IN
VIDE CHARGE SHEET DATED 16.10.2015 AND ETC.

    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN `B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:


                       ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court assailing the communication/order dated 10.02.2016 impugned at Annexure `D' to the petition. In that light the petitioner is seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to engage a legal practitioner to defend him in the disciplinary proceedings initiated by respondent No.2. The petitioner is also seeking that the respondent No.2 be directed to procure the documents pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings.

2. The respondents have filed a detailed objection statement seeking to sustain their action. -3-

3. It is not in dispute that subsequent to the issue of the impugned communication dated 10.02.2016 the disciplinary proceedings has been completed. If that be the position, the prayer as made in this petition has rendered itself infructuous at this point in time. However, if the action pursuant to the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings is against the petitioner and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, it would be open for the petitioner to urge the grounds as urged in this petition, in such proceedings that may be initiated by the petitioner in that regard.

All contentions are therefore left open. In terms of the above, petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE SPS/bms

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court