Disposed

B R Kumar v. Indian

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Jul 2024WP/2671/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court closed Writ Petition No. 2671 of 2020 without passing any orders. The petitioner, a retired bank manager, had challenged a disciplinary memorandum alleging arbitrary action. The court allowed closure based on respondent instructions stating the petitioner expired, family pension was granted, and disciplinary proceedings abated.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. The writ petition is closed following respondent's instructions on petitioner's death and abatement of proceedings.

B R Kumar Vs Indian — Banking and Recovery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2671 OF 2020

¶7

Between;

¶8

Banda Ravi Kumar S/o.Late Sri Rama Chandra Rao Aged:65^Years Occ. Manager Retired, Flat No; 404, The Oaktree Apartments, 24 th Main Near Radha Krishna Hospital, Banashankari 3'"' Stage Banagalore - 560085

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Indian Overseas Bank Rep By: Dy. General Manager / Disciplinary Authority Zonal Office, #8-2-120/117/F-1, First Floor, Punnaiah, Plaza, Road No. 2 Near Jubilee Hills Check Post, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-34

¶12

¶13

1. Assistant General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Regional Office, 3 -

¶14

Floor, Sri Nithya Complex, Ramatalkies Main Road, Visakhapatnam 530016

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ Order or direction, more particularly one in the

¶17

nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned letter^{dt.06-08-2019} styled as Memorandum of Allegations and Articles of Charge issued by the respondent consequent to the letter dt.25-07-2017 sent by the 2 nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the principles of natural justice and unconstitutional and grant such other necessary^{reliefofreliefsasthis} Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings arising from the letter DO:DA:DGM(ASK):9840: :2019-20, dt.06-08-2019 and the letter bearing DO:DA:DGM(AKS) ;VIG:9840/8/2-19-20 dated 17-10-2019 in the interest of justice

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI K RAGHAVA CHARYULU

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A KRISHNAM RAJU

¶22

The Court made the following Order

¶23

¶24

APHC010045132020

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3310]

¶26

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶27

WEDNESDAY .THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO: 2671/2020

Between:

B R Kumar

...PETITIONER

AND

Indian Oversees Bank

...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶38

1.KRAGHAVACHARYULU

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶40

1.AKRISHNAM RAJU

¶41

The Court made the following:

¶42

ORDER:

¶43

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶44

seeking the following relief:

¶45

“ to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction^more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned letter, dated 06.08.2019 styled as ‘Memorandum of Allegations and Articles of Charge’^issued by the respondent consequent to the letter, dated 25.07.2017 sent by the 2^^ respondent as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the principles of natural justice and unconstitutional and grant such other necessary relief^or

reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case."

¶50

Heard Smt Padmaja Gadiraju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr K.Raghavacharylu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Prudvi Raju Mudunuri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr A.Krishnam Raju, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶51

During hearing, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted a Memo of written instructions and additional documents, dated 04.07.2024. According to the said instructions, the petitioner expired on 05.05.2023 and the Respondent-Bank is paying family pension since 06.05.2023. It is further stated in the said instructions that the RespondentBank has abated all the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

¶52

In view of the said written instructions, no further orders are required to be passed in this Writ Petition and the same may be closed.

¶53

Hence, recording the above instructions, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶54

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶55

¶56

//TRUE COPY//

¶57

Sd/- K J RAJA BABU assistant ^|G1STRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶58

To,

¶59

One CC to Sri K Raghava Charyulu, Advocate [OPUC]

¶60

¶61

One CC to Sri A Krishnam Raju, Advocate [OPUC]

Throo

HIGH COURT

DATED: 10/07/2024

ORDER

WP.No.2671 of 2020

/o
IX ? « JAN 2I?I I
•x ^ Curreni Section . ^

¶69

CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

B R Kumar v. Indian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B R Kumar v. Indian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.V. Subba Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Mines and Geology

Lalam Nukaratnam Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Santhi Kumari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Katragadda Venkata Satish Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A Ravi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Lakshmana Swamy Vs The Union Bank of India