[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
R.Rajendran vs The Chief General Manager (Hrd) on 14 January, 2026
W.A.No.23 of 2026 1
2026:KER:2356
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 24TH POUSHA, 1947
WA NO. 23 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.12.2025 IN WP(C) NO.23748 OF 2025 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
R.RAJENDRAN,AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.LATE K.P RAMAKRISHNAN KARUKASSERY HOUSE, VADAKKUMMURI
(PO) CHEMMAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 680570
BY ADV SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HRD)
UNION BANK OF INDIA, HEAD OFFICE, UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239.
VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, PIN
- 400021
BY ADV.SADCHITH P.KURUP
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.01.2026, THE
COURT ON 14.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.23 of 2026 2
2026:KER:2356
Judgment
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
Heard on the question of admission.
2. The present intra court appeal under Section 5 of the
High Court Act,1958 assails the judgment dated 01.12.2025
passed in WP(C) No.23748/2025 whereby the Writ Petition filed
by the appellant has been dismissed by the learned Single
Judge.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant while
working as the Manager of a branch of Andhra Bank (now
merged with Union Bank of India) was proceeded against and
was terminated from service in the year 2011. The appeal was
2026:KER:2356
also rejected. The appellant had approached the learned Single
Judge seeking a direction to the respondent to consider Ext.P2
representation stating that the criminal proceedings have
culminated into acquittal from the criminal charges. The
learned Single Judge observed that the appellant was
terminated from service in 2011, the appeal against the
termination was rejected in 2014 and he was terminated on the
basis of enquiry proceedings. Therefore, subsequent acquittal
in criminal proceedings would not be of any help to him since
the disciplinary proceedings under the service rules and the
criminal proceedings are altogether different as also the
considerations are also different. The learned Single Judge
dismissed the Writ Petition.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that
the learned Single Judge erred in passing the impugned
judgment which is contrary to law, facts and circumstances
2026:KER:2356
arising out of the case. The appellant is facing severe hardships
in life. He has 26 years of meritorious service in the bank prior
to the alleged incident. The learned Single Judge ought to have
considered his case sympathetically. Thus, this Writ Appeal
deserves to be allowed.
5. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the
respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that the Writ
Appeal is not maintainable since the dismissal order
challenged therein was passed after a comprehensive domestic
enquiry conducted strictly under the Andhra Bank Officers
(Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1981 and also submitted that
there is inordinate delay and latches since the cause of action
arose on 31.12.2012. Thus, this Writ Appeal deserves to be
dismissed.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused
the records.
2026:KER:2356
7. The Apex Court, in paragraph-16 in the case of Union of
India v M.K.Sarkar1, has held as follows:
"16. A court or tribunal, before directing
"consideration" of a claim or representation should examine
whether the claim or representation is with reference to a
"live" issue or whether it is with reference to a "dead" or
"stale" issue. If it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue
or dispute, the court/tribunal should put an end to the
matter and should not direct consideration or
reconsideration. If the court or tribunal deciding to direct
"consideration" without itself examining the merits, it
should make it clear that such consideration will be without
prejudice to any contention relating to limitation or delay
and laches. Even if the court does not expressly say so, that
would be the legal position and effect."
8. The Apex Court in the case of Surjeet Singh Sahni v State
of U.P. and others2, in paragraph-5, has held that,
"5. As observed by this Court in catena of decisions, mere
representation does not extend the period of limitation and
the aggrieved person has to approach the Court
expeditiously and within reasonable time. If it is found that
the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High
Court should dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to
dispose of the writ petition by relegating the writ petitioner
(2010) 2 SCC 59
(2022) 15 SCC 536
2026:KER:2356
to file a representation and/or directing the authority to
decide the representation, once it is found that the original
writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches. Such order
shall not give an opportunity to the petitioner to thereafter
contend that rejection of the representation subsequently
has given a fresh cause of action."
9. It is not in dispute that the appellant was terminated
from service in 2011 after a regular departmental enquiry.
The appeal against the termination was also dismissed. The
learned Single Judge was right in coming to the conclusion
that the punishment imposed after the disciplinary
proceedings would not help the appellant even if he is
acquitted of the criminal charges. The appellant has not
explained the delay in filing the Writ Petition in the year 2025,
particularly, when he was terminated in the year 2011. There
is huge delay and laches in approaching the Writ Court.
2026:KER:2356
10. In view of the aforesaid, we do not consider it
appropriate to interfere with the order passed by the learned
single judge.
The Writ Appeal being bereft of merit and substance and
hit by the principles of delay and laches, the same is hereby
dismissed at the admission stage itself.
Sd/- SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
css/
