K.Manimaran vs The Deputy General Manager (B & O)
2023 Latest Caselaw 1446 Mad

                                                                                 W.A.(MD)No.95 of 2017

                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                 DATED : 06.02.2023

                                                      CORAM:

                             THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
                                                and
                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                              W.A.(MD)No.95 of 2017
                                                      and
                                             C.M.P.(MD)No.914 of 2017

            K.Manimaran                                                               ... Appellant
                                                          vs.
            1.The Deputy General Manager (B & O),
              (Appellate Authority),
              State Bank of India,
              (H.R. Section), Network-2, Administrative Office,
              Madurai Cluster, ''MADHURAM'' Complex,
              No.2, Dr.Ambedkar Road,
              Madurai – 625 002.

            2.The Regional Manager, RBO-I &
                Disciplinary Authority,
              State Bank of India (Disciplinary Proceedings Cell),
              Network-2, Administrative Office,
              Madurai Cluster, ''MADHURAM'' Complex,
              No.2, Dr.Ambedkar Road,
              Madurai – 625 002.

            3.The Chief Manager,
              State Bank of India,
              Tallakulam Branch,
              No.2, Dr.Ambedkar Road,
              Madurai – 625 002.                                                     ... Respondents

                            Prayer :- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the
            order dated 08.12.2016, passed in W.P.(MD)No.22189 of 2016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis


            1/5
                                                                                  W.A.(MD)No.95 of 2017



                           For Appellant                : Mr.S.Rajasekar

                            For Respondents             : Mr.V.P.Rajan


                                                     JUDGMENT

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

and SUNDER MOHAN, J.

The appellant, being aggrieved by the departmental proceedings

culminating in removal from service, challenged the same by way of filing a Writ of

Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the termination order and consequently, to

reinstate him with back wages.

2. When the Writ Petition came up for admission, this Court found that

being a workman falling within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, there is an alternative remedy available under the Statute and

therefore, the Writ Petition cannot be entertained.

3. Not being satisfied with the said order, the appellant has preferred the

present Writ Appeal. However, on perusing the facts and the averments made in the

grounds of the Writ Appeal, this Court finds that the appellant is under the

impression that the removal from service, being a capital punishment, which is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.(MD)No.95 of 2017

disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, the same can be canvassed before the

Constitutional Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has also

relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.Ramana vs.

A.P.S.R.T.C. and others reported in AIR 2005 SC 3417 and Ranjit Thakur vs.

Union of India and others reported in AIR 1987 SCC 2386. However, this Court

finds that only in extraordinary circumstances, the jurisdiction of this Court can be

invoked, provided, the Court is convinced that alternative remedy is not efficacious.

4. As far as the case in hand is concerned, it is the indiscretion of the

appellant to invoke the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court and had wasted time.

Since this Court finds no error in the order of the learned Single Judge, this Writ

Appeal is dismissed. No costs. However, the time taken to pursue the Writ Petition

and the Writ Appeal shall be taken note of by the Appellate Authority while

condoning the delay in preferring the appeal, if the appellant desires to pursue the

matter before the Appellate Authority. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous

Petition is closed.

            NCC      : Yes / No                                         [G.J., J.] [S.M., J.]
            Index    : Yes / No                                               06.02.2023
            Internet : Yes / No
            SMN2

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.(MD)No.95 of 2017

To

1.The Deputy General Manager (B & O), (Appellate Authority), State Bank of India, (H.R. Section), Network-2, Administrative Office, Madurai Cluster, ''MADHURAM'' Complex, No.2, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Madurai – 625 002.

2.The Regional Manager, RBO-I & Disciplinary Authority, State Bank of India (Disciplinary Proceedings Cell), Network-2, Administrative Office, Madurai Cluster, ''MADHURAM'' Complex, No.2, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Madurai – 625 002.

3.The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Tallakulam Branch, No.2, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Madurai – 625 002.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.A.(MD)No.95 of 2017

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

and SUNDER MOHAN, J.

SMN2

JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD)No.95 of 2017

DATED : 06.02.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis