IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION No.3052 OF 2014 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M.C.KRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA, AGE 59 YEARS, EMPLOYEE NO.14099, STATE BANK OF MYSORE, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BRANCH, BANGALORE-560052.
... PETITIONER (By SRI : UMAPATHI S., ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF MYSORE, HEAD OFFICE, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560009.
2. THE GENERAL SECRETARY, STATE BANK OF MYSORE EMPLOYEES UNION, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560009.
3. THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI – 110 001. BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS (By Sri : K.SUBHA ANANTHI, ADV. FOR R1 Sri : P.L.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R2 Smt: ANUPAMA HEGDE, ADV. FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT, ORDER OR OTHER DIRECTIONS TO UNDERTAKE INVESTIGATION BY THIRD RESPONDENT ON THE PETITIONER’S COMPLAINT DATED 05.11.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND TO INITIATE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THOSE CONCERNED UPON SUBMISSION OF SUCH REPORT AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri Umapathi.S., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.Subha Ananthi, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Sri P.L.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Smt.Anupama Hegde, learned Central Government counsel for respondent No.3.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
3. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter alia has prayed for following reliefs:
a) Undertake Investigation by third respondent on the petitioner’s complaint dated 05.11.2013 vide Annexure-A and to initiate legal action against those concerned upon submission of such report.
b) Direct respondent No.3 to initiate disciplinary proceedings against first and second respondents for their deliberate failure to proceed against the suspected officials as per law.
c) Compensate the petitioner suitable in terms of money for the loss and detriment suffered by him.
d) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the petitioner has filed a complaint against respondent Nos.1 and 2 to respondent No.3, no action in the matter has been taken.
5. From perusal of the cause-title as well as averments made in the writ petition, it is evident that respondent No.3 is neither the appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority in respect of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, respondent No.3 cannot take action against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 with regard to the allegations of the petitioner in respect of mis- appropriation of funds.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as may be appropriate to the petitioner, under law.
SD/- JUDGE DKB