V.V.Iyer vs Central Bank Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 20006 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

V.V.Iyer vs Central Bank Of India on 29 November, 2023

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                                    1                  W.P. No.14399/2023



 IN    THE         HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        AT JABALPUR
                                BEFORE
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                   ON THE 29th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
                    WRIT PETITION No.14399 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
V.V. IYER S/O LATE VAIDHYANATHAN IYER,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED CHIEF MANAGER FROM CENTRAL
BANK OF INDIA R/O DUPLEX NO.7, JANKI
RESIDENCY, KOLAR ROAD, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                                         .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NARMADA PRASAD CHOUDHARY - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA THROUGH THE
      GENERAL MANAGER CHANDER MUKHI,
      NARIMAN       POINT,       MUMBAI
      (MAHARASHTRA)

2.    REGIONAL MANAGER & DISCIPLINARY
      AUTHORITY, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,
      REGIONAL OFFICE, 9, ARERA HILLS, JAIL
      ROAD BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ABHINAV SUNIL KHERDIKAR - ADVOCATE)
.........................................................................................................
       This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
                                    ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

"i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned Chargesheet dated 28-

11-2022 passed by the Respondents and also quash all other subsequent orders for inquiry issued after 28/11/2022 by the Respondent along with the heavy cost for compensation to be imposed on the respondents.

ii) Cost of the petition be also imposed to the respondent bank payable to the petitioner.

iii) Any other relief/ orders/ direction/ directions which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may also be passed in the interest of justice."

2. It is the case of petitioner that charge-sheet has been issued in relation to an act which was done prior to four years of his retirement, therefore charge-sheet is not maintainable.

3. Respondents have filed their return and have relied upon the order dated 23/11/2023 by which after allowing the representation made by petitioner, departmental proceedings have been dropped and petitioner has been discharged.

4. In view of discharge of petitioner, nothing survives in the Writ Petition. Therefore, the same has rendered infructuous.

5. However, counsel for petitioner submitted that since the charge- sheet was issued erroneously, therefore heavy cost should be imposed and for the said purposes, has relied upon the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat and Another reported in (2013) 4 SCC 301 and UCO Bank and Others Vs. Rajendra Shankar Shukla reported in (2018) 14 SCC 92.

6. Considered the submission with regard to imposition of cost.

7. In the cases relied upon by counsel for petitioner, employee was compelled to contest the case for years together and ultimately, it was found that the action of respondent was bad. However, in the present

case, respondents have corrected their mistake as soon as representation against the charge-sheet was made.

8. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for imposition of cost.

9. Accordingly, petition is dismissed as infructuous.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE S.M.