Madras High Court
M.Nagaraj vs The Zonal Manager / Appellate ... on 28 February, 2022
W.A(MD)No.118 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A(MD)No.118 of 2022
M.Nagaraj .. Appellant/
Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Zonal Manager / Appellate Authority,
Coimbatore Zone, Bank of India,
Star House, 324, Oppanakara Street,
Coimbatore – 1.
2.The Deputy Zonal Manager,
Disciplinary Authority,
Coimbatore Zone, Bank of India,
Star House, 324, Oppanakara Street,
Coimbatore – 1. .. Respondents/
Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order dated 28.11.2019 passed in W.P(MD)No.16099 of 2012 by the
learned Single Judge.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Krishnan
JUDGMENT
[Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.]
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 28.11.2019
recorded on W.P(MD)No.16099 of 2012.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.118 of 2022
2. Learned advocate for the appellant / original writ petitioner
has submitted that, the contention that the dismissal order was passed by
an authority which was not competent to do so, is not dealt with at all and
to that extent the matter may be required to be remanded back.
Additionally it is submitted that, the appeal filed by the writ petitioner
before the departmental authorities was not disposed of within stipulated
time. It is submitted that on these grounds this appeal be entertained.
3. Having heard learned advocate for the appellant / writ
petitioner and having considered the material on record this Court finds
that the petitioner / appellant was an officer of the respondent bank,
which is a nationalised bank. Misappropriation of fund was the charge
against him. The modus alleged was that, the fund was credited to some
bank accounts, which were controlled by him and therefrom the money
was siphoned of. This was conceded by the petitioner. Based on that
statement, the petitioner, who was working as manager, was dismissed
from service. The departmental appeal is also decided against him. Writ
petition is also dismissed by this Court. The above shows that, the fraud
having been committed by the present appellant, is not the matter to be
gone into in this appeal. If that is so, on merits no interference would be
required in the dismissal of the officer, which is upheld by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.118 of 2022
departmental authority, which is not interfered by the learned Single
Judge while exercising discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Keeping this in view, even if the argument of the learned advocate
for the appellant is right, no relief can be granted to him. If the order was
passed by an authority, which is perceived to be incompetent, that was
the first point to be gone into by the higher authorities departmentally.
The higher authority has already found that the dismissal was justified in
the facts of this case. Thus it is not that an incompetent authority of the
respondent bank has passed / upheld dismissal order. This argument
would not take the case of the appellant any further. So far delay in
deciding the departmental appeal is concerned, the time limit prescribed
in departmental enquiry cannot be seen with the view point of Limitation
Act. In any case, late disposal of departmental appeal, by which the
dismissal is upheld, can not be said to have prejudice the case of
appellant. For these reasons, no relief can be granted to the appellant
and the order impugned in this appeal would not call for any interference.
4. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is
dismissed. No costs.
[P.U., J] [K.R., J]
28.02.2022
Index : No
smn/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.118 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
smn
W.A(MD)No.118 of 2022
28.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
