IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.315 OF 2016 (L-TER) BETWEEN:
B.GIRIDHAR S/O B.KRISHNA MURTHY AGE: 43 YEARS PRESENTLY WORKING AS SINGLE WINDOW OPERATOR STATE BANK OF MYSORE AMEERPET BRANCH HYDERABAD – 500 016 ... APPELLANT (BY MR.M.NARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE BANK OF MYSORE REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER (HR) PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT HEAD OFFICE, K.G.ROAD BENGALURU – 560 009 ... RESPONDENT (BY MR.RAMESH UPADHYAYA, ADVOCATE) ---
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.47074 of 2014 dated 9.11.2015.
This appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the following:
JUDGMENT The writ appeal is barred by limitation. There is a delay of 49 days.
2. The writ petitioner was employed as a cashier at the State Bank of Mysore. On November 16, 2004, at the end of the working hours, while closing the bank cash transactions, the writ petitioner had put his initials in the vault register, recorded the cash balance, but refused to initial the cash balance. The Bank Manager drew the attention of the writ petitioner to Chapter-9 of the Bank’s Book of Instructions and requested him to initial the cash balance. He denied to comply with the instructions of his superior and told him to do whatever he wanted. When the Bank Manager advised him to behave properly, he hit the Manager with fist and caused bleeding injury to him.
3. A disciplinary enquiry was initiated and he was removed from service.
4. The Labour Court, however, directed reinstatement without backwages.
5. The award passed by the Labour Court has been challenged by the writ petitioner by filing a writ petition, which was registered as writ petition No.47074 of 2014.
6. The Hon’ble Single Judge dismissed such writ petition.
The employee is the appellant. Having regard to his conduct, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal.
7. The application for condonation of delay stands dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is, also, dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE RV