IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. PATIL AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT APPEAL No.5595/2017 (S-DE) BETWEEN:
SRI K.P. RAMANJINI, S/O. K.C. PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.459, MANJUSHREE NILAYA, R.M. NAGAR MAIN ROAD, KALKERE, HOROMAVU POST, BENGALURU – 560 043. (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) ... APPELLANT (BY SRI: GOPALA V. BILALMANE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE BANK OF MYSORE HEAD OFFICE, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF MYSORE, HEAD OFFICE, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009.
3. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF MYSORE, WHITE FIELD BRANCH, BENGALURU – 560 066.
4. APPELLATE AUTHORITY & DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, BENGALURU ZONAL OFFICE – 560 009.
5. DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY & ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, REGION II, BENGALURU ZONE, BKG COMPLEX, FIRST FLOOR, AVENUE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009. ... RESPONDENTS ***** THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14/12/2016 PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 44256/2015.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T The legality and correctness of the order dated 14/12/2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.44256/2015 is assailed in this writ appeal. There is a delay of 234 days in filing this appeal. Nevertheless, we have heard learned counsel for appellant on merits of the case also.
2. Appellant was issued charge sheet dated 07/03/2002 consisting of certain imputation of charges. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was held against him and an Enquiry Report dated 31/05/2004 was submitted. Accepting the said report, respondent – Bank dismissed the appellant from service on 18/10/2004. The appellant appealed against the said order, but it was dismissed by order dated 23/02/2005.
At this stage itself, it may be mentioned that the appellant herein had filed W.P.No.5788/2004 before this court. The said writ petition was dismissed reserving liberty to the appellant herein to raise all contentions after the final orders are passed. The said writ petition was filed during the pendency of the departmental enquiry.
3. The appellant herein has filed writ petition in the year 2015. Learned Single Judge after noting the contentions of the respective parties, concluded the writ petition which was filed ten years and eleven months after the order of dismissal which was passed on 18/10/2004 and the subsequent appellate order dated 23/02/2005 and therefore, dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. That order is challenged in this appeal.
4. We have heard learned counsel for appellant.
He would submit that in the earlier writ petition namely, W.P.No.5788/2004, this court had reserved liberty to the appellant herein to assail the final order to be passed after the conclusion of the enquiry and on the basis of the said liberty reserved by this court, writ petition was preferred in the year 2015. The reason as to why the petition was preferred in the year 2015 is on account of the conclusion of the criminal prosecution against the petitioner which concluded on 29/11/2014. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that within one year four months after the conclusion of the criminal proceeding, appellant approached this court by filing the aforementioned writ petition and that there has been no delay or laches on his part in approaching this court challenging the order of dismissal passed in the year 2004.
5. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the fact that final orders would imply that it is the final orders passed in the criminal prosecution, as the appellant was acquitted in the said proceeding and therefore, the impugned dismissal from service was illegal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for appellant and on perusal of the material on record, we note that order dated 07/06/2004 (a copy of which is produced at Annexure “L”) passed in W.P.No.5788/2004 had reserved liberty to appellant herein to assail any adverse order to be passed after final orders are passed. Paragraph No.8 of the said order reads as under:-
“8. In the circumstances, I do not find any grounds to stay the enquiry. However, I deem it fit not to express any opinion with regard to other contentions raised by any parties. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to raise other contentions before the authorities and move this court, if necessary, after final orders are passed.”
7. The expression “after final orders are passed”, categorically refers to the final orders to be passed in the disciplinary proceeding and not to any final order being passed in the criminal proceeding that was also taken up against the appellant herein as the said order was passed in a writ petition which arose from the enquiry proceeding and not the criminal proceeding against the appellant.
8. The contention that the appellant construed the same as after the conclusion of the criminal proceeding against him, in which he was acquitted, cannot be accepted and therefore, learned Single Judge has rightly declined to consider the writ petition on merits. Hence, we find that the said conclusion reached by learned Single Judge is proper. In the result, we find that there is no merit in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, all other applications also stand dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE *mvs