G Ramesh vs The Assistant General Manager
2021 Latest Caselaw 780 Kant

                        1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                      BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

       WRIT PETITION No.14709/2020 (S - RES)

BETWEEN

SRI.G RAMESH,
S/O GANESH RAO,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEAR,
R/O SONDEKOPPA ROAD,
NEAR GANESH TEMPLE,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 123
                                       ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.NAGARAJAPPA A., ADVOCATE
(PHYSICAL HEARING)

AND

1.    THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,
      CUM. DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,
      STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
      (NOW STATE BANK OF INDIA),
      REGION II, BANGALORE ZONE,
      B.K.G. COMPLEX,
      1ST FLOOR, AVENUE ROAD,
      BENGALURU - 560 009.

2.    THE APPELLANT AUTHORITY,
      CUM DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
      STATE BANK OF MYSORE
                             2



     (NOW STATE BANK OF INDIA),
     REGION II, BANGALORE ZONE,
     B.K.G.COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR,
     AVENUE ROAD,
     BENGALURU - 560 009.
                                          ... RESPONDENTS

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
VIDE ORDER R-1 DATED 15.3.2005 DISMISSING THE
PETITIONER FROM SERVICE MARK AT ANNEXURE-B AND
ALSO THE ORDER OF THE R-2 APPELLATE AUTHORITY
DATED 18.1.2006 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,


     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

The petitioner in this writ petition has called in

question the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated

15.03.2005 and that of the Appellate Authority dated

18.01.2006, whereby a penalty of dismissal from service

was imposed upon the petitioner.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of writ petition are

that, the petitioner while working as a Dafthari in the

respondent-Bank committed certain misconduct, which

gave raise to two proceedings; one setting the criminal law

into motion for offences under Sections 120B, 363, 397 of

IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Arms Act and the

other issuance of a charge sheet for conduct of a

departmental enquiry.

3. The Departmental Enquiry against the

petitioner ended in imposition of penalty of dismissal from

service by an order of the Disciplinary Authority dated

15.03.2005. The petitioner filed an appeal against the

order of dismissal and also was dismissed on 18.01.2006

by an order of the Appellate Authority. It is these orders

that are called in question in this writ petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel, Sri. Nagarajappa

A., appearing for the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would submit that though the orders impugned are of the

year 2005 and 2006, the criminal proceedings that were

initiated on the same set of facts ended only on

31.10.2019 by an order of the Criminal Court acquitting

the petitioner. He would therefore submit that there is no

delay or laches on the part of the petitioner in raising the

challenge to the impugned orders at this juncture even

after a delay of 15 years.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and perused the material on record.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner pursuant

to a Departmental Enquiry was imposed a penalty of

dismissal from service on 15.03.2005, the appeal filed by

the petitioner against the order of dismissal was also

dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 18.01.2006. The

justification of the petitioner for approaching this Court

after 15 years of the order of the Disciplinary Authority

i.e., pendency of the criminal case, which ended in

acquitted only on 31.10.2019. This justification can hardly

be said to be satisfactory for a delay of 15 years in

approaching this Court and challenging the order of

dismissal. Pendency of a criminal case on the same set of

facts can never be an impediment to challenge the order of

dismissal. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of the

Apex Court which disapproves the action of the High Court

in entertaining the writ petition challenging the order of

dismissal after a period of 10 years in the case of STATE

BANK OF INDORE VS. GOVINDRAO reported in (1997) 2

SCC 617, wherein it has held as follows:

"2. On 3-10-1977 the Disciplinary Authority, after taking into consideration the objection filed by Govindrao, passed an order dismissing him from service. On 2-6-1978 the Bank paid Govindrao full Provident Fund which was forwarded along with a letter of the same date. On 5-6-1978 Govindrao accepted the Provident Fund amount subject to certain objections and claim of interest. On 18-7- 1978, an appeal preferred by Govindrao against the order of dismissal, was dismissed by the appellate authority. Nearly four years thereafter, another appeal (described as special appeal) was filed by Govindrao which was again dismissed.

3. Nothing happened thereafter for nearly five years. On 6-4-1987 Govindrao decided to move a writ petition challenging the validity of the order of dismissal passed on 3- 10-1977. The writ petition came to be heard by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. By a judgment and order dated 21-6-1990, V.D. Gyani and A.G. Qureshi, JJ. quashed the order of dismissal. V.D. Gyani, J., speaking for the Bench, held that the writ petitioner must be deemed to have retired on his due date of retirement i.e. 9-10-1977. The Bank was directed to pay all the dues, Provident Fund, pension, gratuity to the writ petitioner within three months from the date of the judgment.

5. It is difficult to see how this writ petition was entertained at all by the High Court. The date of dismissal was 3- 10-1977. The appeal against that order was dismissed on 18-7-1978. The writ petitioner did not choose to challenge that appellate order by way of a writ petition. What was described as special appeal was again dismissed on 12-5-1982. There was

no reason for the High Court, after a long lapse of nearly ten years from the date of the order of dismissal, to entertain the writ petition and quash the order of dismissal. We are of the view that the High Court should not have entertained that at all. It should have been dismissed in limine."

(emphasis supplied)

Therefore, entertaining this writ petition which

challenges the orders of 15 years vintage will fall foul of

the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of STATE

BANK OF INDORE (supra).

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition

lacks merit and is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SJK