Canara Bank vs T.B. Mohanan
2022 Latest Caselaw 7597 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2022

                     PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

                       AND

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

      WRIT APPEAL NO.417 OF 2022 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

1 . CANARA BANK
    REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
    AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
    HEAD OFFICE, 112, J C ROAD
    BENGALURU 560002.

2 . THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
    HRM SECTION, CIRCLE OFFICE
    BENGALURU 560001.

3 . THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
    HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
    SECTION, CIRCLE OFFICE
    SPENCER'S TOWER, 86, MG ROAD
    BENGALURU-560 001

   THE APPELLANTS NOS. 1 TO 3
   ARE REP. BY ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
   HRM SECTION, CANARA BANK
   CIRCLE OFFICE, SPENCER'S TOWER
   86, MG ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001.
                                    ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. B.H. SATISH, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. T. P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE)
                              -2-


AND:

T.B. MOHANAN
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RAJAMALLI - 57A,
THADAVILLIL HOUSE
SAMANWAYA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
CHERANALLOOR
KOCHI - 682 034.
                                             ...RESPONDENT

(SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)


     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 30.3.2022
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT
PETITION No.17357/2021 (S-RES).

     THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, ASHOK S. KINAGI J, DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

This intra-court appeal is filed challenging the

order dated 30.03.2022, passed in W.P.No.

16934/2021 c/w W.P.No.17357/2021.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal

are as under:

The respondent/petitioner while working as a

Chief Manager, was issued a charge sheet and inquiry

was held and found guilty of charges. The disciplinary

authority concurring with the findings of the inquiring

officer imposed the punishment of dismissal from

service. Respondent/petitioner aggrieved by the

termination order, preferred an appeal before the

Appellate Authority. The said appeal came to be

dismissed. The respondent/petitioner filed a writ

petition in W.P.No.17357/2021. The writ court

granted an interim order staying the operation and

execution of the impugned order of dismissal on

30.03.2022, and further directed the appellant/

respondent-bank to settle provisional pensionary

benefits to the respondent/petitioner and the

provisional pensionary benefits shall be subject to the

outcome of the writ petition. Hence this writ appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants

and learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits

that the respondent has not sought any interim order

in the writ petition. He submits that the learned

Single Judge has passed the order without interim

prayer sought by the respondent. He further submits

that the impugned order passed by the writ court is in

the form of final order. Hence prayed to allow the

appeal.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the

respondent fairly concedes that the respondent has

not sought any interim prayer in the writ petition. He

submits that he will not press for the interim prayer.

He further submits that the pleadings are complete

and request for early disposal of writ petition and as

such, writ petition may be disposed of.

6. Perused the records and considered the

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. It is not in dispute that the respondent was

terminated from service on 27.09.2019. The

respondent filed an appeal which came to be

dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner

filed a writ petition in W.P.No.17357/2021. In the

said writ petition, the respondent has not sought for

any interim relief. However, the writ court passed the

impugned order. The impugned order is not

sustainable in the eyes of law.

8. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. The

impugned order dated 30.03.2022, passed in

W.P.No.16934/2021 c/w W.P.No.17357/2021, is set

aside.

9. Considering the age of the respondent, we

request the learned Single Judge to make all possible

endeavour to consider and decide the writ petition

finally, on the next date of hearing. If not possible,

by fixing a short date expeditiously.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RD