IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO.9542/2013 (S-DE) BETWEEN:
A.R. NATARAJAN S/O LATE S.A.A. RAJAN AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS NO.B-278, KENDRIYAVIHAR YELAHANKA BANGALORE.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI N. AMARESH, ADV.) AND:
REGIONAL MANAGER, DENA BANK BANGALORE REGIONAL OFFICE IST FLOOR, VIKSHISHDAMA NO.38, NEAR CBI OFFICE 12TH CROSS, GANGANAGAR (NORTH) BANGALORE – 560 003.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI T.P. MUTHANNA, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO ANNEXURE-A DATED 08.10.2012 AND ON PERUSAL QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE SAME, AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 14, 16 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner was appointed as a Personnel Officer in the respondent - Bank on 28.06.1978. Subsequently, he was promoted to the cadre of Personal Manager. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2010. A charge sheet having been issued vide Annexure-A on 08.10.2012, explanation vide Annexure-B was submitted on 28.11.2012. To conduct the disciplinary enquiry, an Enquiry Officer having been appointed on 02.01.2013, with which a Presenting Officer was also appointed, this writ petition was filed on 22.02.2013, to quash the memorandum - charge sheet, as at Annexure-A.
2. Statement of objections was filed by the respondent in justification of the action taken vide Annexure-A.
3. Sri. T.P. Muthanna, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that in the absence of an ad interim order of stay in this petition, the disciplinary enquiry initiated against the petitioner in pursuance of Annexure-A was held and concluded. He submitted that after receipt of the enquiry report, second show cause notice was issued and the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of reduction of 1/4th pension for a period of two years. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the imposition of punishment, the challenge raised against Annexure-A to the petition does not survive for consideration.
As the respondent has proceeded further after the issuance of Annexure-A and imposed the punishment on the petitioner, this petition does not survive for consideration. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek remedy in accordance with law, if he is aggrieved by the order of penalty - reduction of 1/4th pension for a period of two years, this petition is disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE ca