Madras High Court
C.Gowri Shankar vs The Indian Overseas Bank on 27 July, 2018
Author: Satrughana Pujahari
Bench: Satrughana Pujahari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 27.07.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATRUGHANA PUJAHARI
W.P.No.13351 of 2016 and
W.M.P.Nos.11698 & 11699 of 2016
C.Gowri Shankar ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The Indian Overseas Bank,
Rep. by General Manager,
Central Office-Post Box No:3765,
Industrial Relations Department,
763, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002
2. Indian Overseas Bank,
Rep. by Chief Manager,
Regional Office,
3/25, Registrar Periyaswamy Street,
Veeraswamy Nagar, Sankaran Palayam,
Vellore - 632 001
3. The Branch Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Thiruvottiyur Market Branch,
No:84, South Mada Street,
Thiruvottiyur Market, Chennai- 600 019 ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records comprised in No:IRD/184/43/ 2014-15 on the file of the 1st respondent dt 10.5.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all attending benefits.
For Petitioner :Mr.S.Ayyadurai,
Senior Counsel
for M/s.V.B.Perumal Raj
For Respondents : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad,
Standing Counsel
ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the termination order issued by the first respondent on the allegation that he has obtained the appointment by furnishing some spurious certificate to get his appointment pursuant to settlement made under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, on the ground that the same is illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principle of Audi Alteram Partem, a salutory principle of natural justice, inasmuch as no departmental enquiry was undertaken and petitioner was not given a chance of hearing to meet the charge even though the removal was stigmatic one. Therefore, he has prayed to quash the order and direct reinstatement of the petitioner in service with back wages.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner so also the the learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Needless to say that this Court has already decided the similar matter in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.23447 to 23484 of 2014 and set aside the impugned orders.
4. Undisputedly, the case of the petitioner is also squarely covered by the said decisions rendered by this Court in the aforesaid batch of writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, consequently, the impugned order of termination of the petitioner from service is set aside. The respondent is directed to reinstate him into service forthwith but the petitioner is not entitled to any back wages, so also, the respondent after such reinstatement is also at liberty to proceed against the petitioner on the aforesaid charges in accordance with law, if so desired. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
27.07.2018
lok
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking
SATRUGHANA PUJAHARI.,J
lok
To
1. The General Manager,
The Indian Overseas Bank,
Central Office-Post Box No:3765,
Industrial Relations Department,
763, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002
2. The Chief Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Regional Office,
13/25, Registrar Periyaswamy Street,
Veeraswamy Nagar, Sankaran Palayam,
Vellore - 632 001
3. The Branch Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Thiruvottiyur Market Branch,
No:84, South Mada Street,
Thiruvottiyur Market, Chennai- 600 019
W.P.No.13351 of 2016 and
W.M.P.Nos.11698 & 11699 of 2016
27.07.2018