G. Nageshwara Rao vs Sri. Rajkiran Rai G
2021 Latest Caselaw 1991 Kant

                         -1-



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2021

                      PRESENT

   THE HON'BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

                        AND

    THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

              C.C.C NO.9 OF 2021 (CIVIL)

BETWEEN:
G.NAGESHWARA RAO
S/O G. GOPALAKRISHNA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
EARLIER WORKING AS
SENIOR MANAGER
AN OFFICER IN MIDDLE MANAGEMENT
GRADE SCALE-III AT
ERSTWHILE ANDHRA BANK
VIDHYAPEETHA CIRCLE BRANCH
BANGALORE
(ILLEGALLY DISMISSED FROM SERVICE)
& RESIDING AT E-2, DCA COMPLEX
SOMESHWARAPURA EXTENSION
CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT
ULSOOR, BANGALORE - 560 008
                                       ... COMPLAINANT
(BY MS.M.L.SUVARNA , ADVOCATE)

AND:
SRI RAJKIRAN RAI G
MANAGING DIRECTOR & CEO
UNION BANK OF INDIA
NO.239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG
NARIMAN POINT
MUMBAI - 400 021
                                           ... ACCUSED
(BY SHRI K.MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE )
                          ---
                               -2-



      THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 READ WITH ARTICLE 215
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO INITIATE
ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR CONTEMPT OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN NOT IMPLEMENTING THE ORDER DATED
03.07.2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO.17050 OF 2008 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY
THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE DIVISION BENCH ON 05.11.2019
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.58 OF 2013 AND ETC.

     THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainant

and the learned counsel appearing for the accused.

2. The complainant was initially an employee of

Andhra Bank. The Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of

dismissal from service on the complainant and also passed an

order of forfeiture. The Appellate Authority confirmed the

penalty. In a writ petition filed by the complainant, by the

judgment and order dated 3rd July 2012, the order of penalty,

the order of forfeiture as well as the order of the Appellate

Authority were set aside and the matter was remanded to the

Inquiring Authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

Thus, the direction was to hold a fresh disciplinary inquiry. The

said order was subjected to a challenge by the Bank by

preferring a writ appeal. By the judgment and order dated 5th

November 2019, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the

writ appeal.

3. The present contempt petition has been filed on 5th

January 2021 complaining about the breach of the directions

contained in the judgment and order dated 3rd July 2012.

Notice was issued in the contempt petition on 11th January

2021. On 23rd March 2021, the assurance of the learned

counsel for the accused was recorded that the order of which

breach is alleged will be complied with within six weeks.

4. An affidavit has been filed by the accused placing

on record the memorandum dated 15th April 2021 issued by the

Disciplinary Authority of the Bank informing the complainant

that a fresh domestic inquiry will be initiated against him by

appointing an Inquiry Authority, the details of which shall be

communicated in due course.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the

complainant submits that though, a memorandum has been

now issued to initiate a fresh inquiry but, the complainant

continues to be under suspension and even the subsistence

allowance has not been paid. She, therefore, submitted that

there is no effective compliance.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the accused on

a query made by the Court states that a Special Leave Petition

was filed by the Bank and the same has been dismissed.

However, there was no stay granted in the Special Leave

Petition.

7. As per the judgment and order dated 3rd July

2012, the respondent ought to have immediately commenced a

fresh inquiry. However, even after dismissal of the writ appeal

on 5th November 2019, no action was taken by the respondent

till 15th April 2021. It is true that by initiating a fresh inquiry, a

substantial compliance has been made of the directions issued

under the judgment and order dated 3rd July 2012. However,

the inquiry will have to be taken to its logical conclusion within

a reasonable time as there is already a delay on the part of the

Bank.

8. There is absolutely no explanation offered by the

respondent why till 15th April 2021, the order dated 3rd July

2012 was not implemented though the writ appeal against the

said judgment and order was dismissed on 5th November 2019.

Though further action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

does not deserve to continue, the respondent/accused will

have to be saddled with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/-.

9. As regards the grievance regarding continuation of

suspension and/or for non-payment of subsistence allowance,

it will be always open for the complainant to file appropriate

proceedings in accordance with law.

10. Accordingly, we pass the following order.

(i) The notice issued is discharged and the contempt

petition is disposed of subject to the condition of

the accused paying costs quantified at Rs.25,000/-

to the complainant within a period of one month

from today;

(ii) It is always open for the complainant to file

appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for

challenging continuation of suspension and/or for

non-payment of the subsistence allowance;

(iii) Though the petition is disposed of, for reporting

compliance regarding the order of payment of cost,

the petition shall be listed on 5th July 2021 under

the caption of Orders.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

AHB