State Bank Of Mysore vs A Srinivasa S/O A V Suryanarayanaswamy on 25 October, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

State Bank Of Mysore vs A Srinivasa S/O A V Suryanarayanaswamy on 25 October, 2010

Bench: J.S.Khehar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY 09 OCTOBER 2§)':=.:c::3~T@L
PRESENT %'    "

THE HONBLE MR.J.s.KHEHAR, CHIEF --     

AN3 T
THE HOWBLE MRJUSTICE'§;'S.BOPf;C£§1§fA 'E; 
WRIT APPEAL No.?v152*£~.Z5'_€sf2?0()V9'iE§§:1};'§'3} 

Between

State Bank of Nlysora' _ _  ~ 
A body c0:1stitui§::dV11;i<i'eifthc "   
State  I_1f.'{di&_V ' '   ' »

(Subsi:1i.a1fy'''BMa7.11E::s_)_A.::i; .%:9s9.%,VkVV 
Rep by its  1T§ir.~t;§ct.or,
Discipiinary Pro-.§e<:din'g--s_; 1T')€part131en£,
Head omce '  "    
Kampegoivda Road,  "
Banga3.Q1'e--5€;0GO9'. '

 " "   Appeiiani

 ' -Sn3:;S1:1§ha_Ananth for
 M]3 K:a$t}§u'i%.'A=';soCiates, advs.,)

Am;

v~ ff " S172':  Srinivasa
_ ._ ';'§gt<i"about 5} years
 " ST;/0 Sri A V Surjganarayaxzaswamy
-, " '"E8_I'1it':I' workmg as Deputy Manager,
 an Qiﬁce in Middls Management

Grade Scak:--II
at Stata Bank of Mysore,
End ustriai Fixlance Branch



 ._ was "ir:i;§;;:<:é

 = vvéiafed

 admimstrautive appeal.

Bangalore, since compulsorﬂy
mtired £5 r/a 510.583/A,

1%' Cross, Kempegowda Layout,
Banashankari III Stage,

II} Phase, Katriguppe,
Bangalorté-560085

(By Sri M.N.Prasam1a, adv., for  __
M/S P S Rajagopal Assts.,_ar;_14_vs.,)  A_ 

This writ appeal is  5? ,(w_)I""A'£m.V.F1eé 'iié§.VIV9VI1'3.1r,aI<:a.VV

High Court Act. praying to 5r:.1',_}asiti,c_:j the 'o1icV§cr_ passed in
Writ Petition NO.304T'2'9~[ dated 14 10/ 2009.

This writ appeaiﬂ br3VI1i'i;_1'ig_»f;,:  '_ :irders this day,
Chief Justicgjglelivttrsd ttptﬁ fQli<§v£vj11g:  

J "

It  not a  Eiispute, that <:o11seq12ent upan

thgfxoldiﬁg réguiar depatfmental enquiry' against

    Order of punishment dated 3.5.2002

' 'L1p01:1 him. By the aforesaid order, the

"Q

1'é':3pG:§§ie:rit was compulsoriiy retired from service.

V' * §i4SSéiI''.i.Sﬁ€d with the order of compuisory retirement

3.5.2002? the prefsrrcd an

respondent

Thti-: at'0a~estat<--?:d appeal was, however, dismisfaed an 31.'?.2002. At. that stage, the M " .

we reependerzt preferred a review petition. The aforesaid review petition was also dismissed on 18.2.2003.

2. Having faiied before the emp1o§rer;:'--.T:the respondent then approached this Court, Petition N0.3{)429/2003. The-'éiferesaré Am. jeeﬁtidza "

came to be aﬁowed by this '..i(.)1x:ier V'

14. 13.2009.

3. erﬁepeal, the order dated 3..earned Single Judge, v«':j:%Me¢:i:1oe No.3G429/2003, has been i.e., State Bank of Mysnm A X _4., ' pemisai of the impugned order passed by Single Judge reveals, that the solitary reaserr ";_f(}I' setting aside the erder of eompuisory ':L."'retLiren1er1t dated 3.5.2002, as also all other . K efensequential erders Was, that during the course of the departmental enquiry conducted against the respondent, the eriquiry oﬁioer did not eompiy with the mandate ef Regulation Ne.€>8(2)(x.:vii) of the State Bank of Mysore Oﬁieei'-3' Service Regulations, aforesaid regulation is being extracted here! _ "The Inquiring Authoi'itj;_,B.f1ay, .'a;ftei{ 'olii(:e'rg closes his evidence, and eha1l'i;f «ti-1e .ot'liee1_' has met 7 got himself examined, gexiergallgs question" gen the circumstances appeari_r1g.,_again:sftA "iI1".t}fi€{ evidence for the ptifpe-ee of'er1al3lin.g tl§1e.._,eiI"ieer tot» explain any cireuttie-tanees lg the evidence againet hini._'_T__ ' ' On account V of the regulation extracted lj1ei*rf;ii1a¥:'3t;i_ve,,l :Sing1e Judge set aside inflicted on the learned Single Juége also ordeteci the respondent and held him to Vhaeikwagee.

it eounsel for the apeeﬂant has raised only leontention, viz., that the applicability of A. ,r:eende.te of regulation 68(2)(xvii) emerges only after i 'evidence has been led by the presenting oﬁicer, as also 'i by the delinquent. It is, therefore, the submissi.on of the learned eouneel fer the appellant, that the departmental €ti'lq'LiiZ*_'y' up to the stage of recording of evidence of the w.........auo \1w%amm§m3'£« rival parties should have been sustained. This Court, according to the iearned counsel for the shouid have set aside the proeeedingsiéiiiceﬁdiiieteéV thereafter, on account of nonmeompliaecev' 14egu1Va:i_0I"1'~. 68(2)(xv'1i), so as to enable the sip;ne1léL:it'A~ iétziiltiiiiiie with the departmental from i applicability of reguiatioxiw'v._68.{2)(:+e?i'i«}i. had prejudiced the claiﬁioof before the enquixy oﬁ'ice:f." V' 6%.___ contention advanced by the the' appellant. it is, therefore, iInpeI'ati*JettforV't1s"'to aside the judgment rendered by Viearnecii A";'-Eizigle Judge dated 14.10.2009, while A Lciispovsing'«._of.__Writ Petition No.30429/2003. Ordered V'VI'he necessary consequence of the instant or§ie.rtis,V that the respondent will be restored to his A ":1" giosiﬁon prior to the passing of the order of compuisory F" Viﬁretirement dated 3.5.2002. He shaﬁ also be entitled to ail consequential beneﬁts i.e., arrears of subsistence allowance from the date the order of punishment dated 3.52002 til} date, and thereaﬁer, in terms of his entitiement of subsistence allowance from mom:h--.Tto month.

7. It shall be open to 'ﬁe the departmeeml enquiry, 133»*.4_foI1eWi; 1g t11e»'irxe.:}_<iate ei' reguiation 68(2)(xvii). in and thereupon, to pass a the reguiatiens. Since the instance, culminated. be inappropriate fer the Accordingly, the appellémet .___e0ﬁciude the degarunental enquiry, Wi}:hi:1V;: {if three months from today, suhieef to the 'reeporﬁdent extending fuil co--0pera£ion. IﬂV"e2;1set}1e..VA:de;;)artInenta1 exzquiry is not eompieted, so es .. ﬁnal erder within a period of three 'VVm0n{1:1s°'fre'nx1 teciay, despite the eeeperation therein of V' V' "..f"thVe'T ereéspendent, the same shall be deemed to have been ' eeﬁeiuded in favour of the respondent. In such an '4 Hevemuality, the respondent wiii be entitled to the benefits, which were granted to him by the leamed Single Judge.

Dispcmed of in the aforesaid terms_,...... bkv &&&& L index:7yeS_{ _» >

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court