IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.15061/2014(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M SUBRAMANYA BHAT AGED 63 YEARS SON OF LATE M DEVARAJ BHAT RETIRED SENIOR MANAGER VIJAYA BANK EMPLOYEE CODE NO. 3132 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 11/99-A, SRI MOOKAMBIKA PRASAD KOPLATHOTA, MALPE UDUPI DISTRICT-576108.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. N RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, ADV.) AND 1. VIJAYA BANK STATUTORY BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER BANKING REGULATION ACT HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
2. VIJAYA BANK 7A, BELI ROAD, NEW KATRA ALLAHABAD-211002 BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER.
3. VIJAYA BANK UDUPI BRANCH UDUPI-576101 BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER 4. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING SUPERVISION 10/3/8, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001 BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER 5. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE NORTH BLOCK SANSAD MARG NEW DELHI-110 001 BY ITS SECRETARY ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAGARAJ DAMODAR, ADV. FOR R1-R3 SRI. C. SHASHIKANTH, ASG. FOR 5 R4 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 HEREIN TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DT.25.4.2013 VIDE ANNX-A BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO SETTLE THE RETIREMENT BENEFITS OF THE PETITIONER & CONSEQUENTLY A WRIT OF CERTIORARI MAY BE ISSUED QUASHING THE NOTICE DT.20.1.2014 ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNX-B UNDER SARFAESI ACT IS ILLEGAL & VOID 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 In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to respondent No.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.4.2013 produced at Annexure-A by directing the respondents to settle the retirement benefits of the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case:
The petitioner is a former employee of Vijaya Bank. Since there were allegations against him, disciplinary enquiry was conducted against him. As per the enquiry report dated 14.12.2007, the petitioner was made to retire compulsorily from the services. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 14.10.2010 confirming the order of the disciplinary authority. During his tenure as employee, he had availed loan for construction of his house. After his compulsory retirement, he requested the bank to settle his retirement benefits and to close the loan account. The respondent-Vijaya Bank did not consider his representation. In the meantime, the Bank had initiated proceedings under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, as the petitioner was due to an amount of Rs.3,98,421.91/- as on 29.1.2014. Since the respondent-Bank has not considered his representation dated 25.4.2013 vide Annexure-A, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent-Bank has initiated disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner. Based on the enquiry report dated 14.12.2007, the bank has passed an order imposing punishment to the petitioner for compulsory retirement from the services. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the said appeal came to be dismissed on 14.10.2010. Immediately, the petitioner filed his first representation dated 16.10.2010 vide Annexure-A1 requesting the Bank to pay his retirement benefits and final representation was given by the petitioner on 25.4.2013 vide Annexure-A. Till today, respondent-Bank has not taken any decision on the representation given by the petitioner. In the meantime, the Bank has initiated proceedings under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. In support of his case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of Baroda v. S.K. Kool (D) through legal representatives and another [AIR 2014 SC 915) to contend that the employee who suffered a punishment in a departmental enquiry is entitled for superannuation benefits.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3-Bank submits that during the employment of the petitioner, there were allegations against him. Therefore, the Bank had initiated disciplinary enquiry and by order dated 14.12.2007, the bank has imposed punishment to the petitioner to compulsorily retire from the service. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority vide order dated 14.10.2010 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority. He further submits that in the order passed by the appellate authority, there is an observation that due to the act of the petitioner, the bank has incurred financial loss of Rs.1.66 crores.
Further, initiation of the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act is entirely different from the proceedings initiated by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner has an alternate remedy under the payment of gratuity. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Sri.Shashikanth.C., learned ASG appearing for respondent No.5 submits that respondent No.5 is a formal party and there is no relief sought against respondent No.5.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Perused the records.
7. The petitioner is a former employee of Vijaya Bank. As there were allegations against him, disciplinary enquiry was conducted and charges were proved as per the enquiry report dated 14.12.2007. Therefore, he was made to compulsorily retire from the services. Being aggrieved by the same, he filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority vide its order dated 14.10.2010 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Immediately, he gave his first representation on 16.10.2010 to respondent-Bank requesting to pay his retirement benefits and again he gave final representation on 25.4.2013 vide Annexure-A. The representation of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondent-Bank.
8. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Bank of Baroda (stated supra), the Bank has taken a decision that employee is not entitled for superannuation benefits. In the case on hand, the respondent-Bank has not taken any decision on the representation. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the present case.
9. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.4.2013 vide Annexure-A in accordance with law within two weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE DM