Dismissed

Ashish Vishwanath Kanikbhat v. Bank of India Thru Its Zonal Manager and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC2 Sept 2008WP/2030/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of departmental enquiry orders against a bank employee. The employee, after being hired solely on a caste certification later invalidated, argued that his eight years of service ensured job security. The court held the false certifiication rendered the appointment illegal, overruling the claim based on service length.

What did the court decide?

Quashing and setting aside of the departmental enquiry orders were dismissed.

Ashish Vishwanath Kanikbhat Vs Bank of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2030 OF 2007

¶5

Ashish Vishwanath Kanikbhat .... Petitioner. vs.

¶6

Bank of India & Ors. .... Respondents.

¶7

Mr. S.G. Kudale i/by K.N. Kandekar for Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Nitin Holkonde i/by Haresh Mehta & Co. for Respondent No. 1. Mr. A.L. Patki, AGP., for Respondent Nos. 3 to 4.

¶9

CORAM : J.N. PATEL, &

¶10

K.K. TATED, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 2^nd September, 2008.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

The petitioner has sought quashing and setting aside of

¶14

¶15

the orders dated 16^th February, 2004 and 22^nd June, 2007 passed by Respondent No. 2 in the departmental enquiry which came to be initiated against the petitioner for seeking employment in the services of the Bank against the post reserved for scheduled caste candidate on the basis of a caste certificate issued by Executive Magistrate. Shriwardhan dated 29^th March, 1995 which came to be subsequently invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee vide their order dated 30^th March, 2002.

¶16

It is not in dispute that the said decision of the Scrutiny

¶17

Committee was challenged before this Court and the High Court vide its order dated 7^th April, 2003 dismissed the said petition which led to the initiation of the departmental proceedings against the petitioner.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has put in eight years of service and that he cannot be removed by initiating a departmental enquiry having attained permanency in the job and has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Devendra Varunath Jangam vs. Deputy

¶19

¶20

Zonal Manager and Disciplinary Authority and others (Writ Petition No. 1167 of 1994 decided on 10^th April, 1996) in support of his case. Unfortunately for the petitioner, the decision does not come to the rescue of the petitioner in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dattatray Namdeo Mendhekar &

¶21

Ors., reported in 2008 (3) ALL MR 441and the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Manager, Central Bank of India vs. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir and Ors., in Civil Appeal No. 4636 of 2008 decided on 25^th July, 2008. In the subsequent case the respondent had put in 20 years of service. In Madhulika' s case the Supreme Court held :-

¶22

“Having considered the matter in the light of the afore-stated legal position, in our judgment, the decision of the High Court is untenable. As noted supra, the employee having accepted the finding of the Scrutiny committee, holding that the caste certificate furnished by the employee was false, the very foundation of her appointment vanished and her appointment was rendered illegal. Her conduct

¶23

¶24

renders her unfit to be continued in service and must necessarily entail termination of her service. Under these circumstances, there is absolutely no justification for her claim in respect of the post merely on the ground that she had worked on the post for over twenty years. The post was meant for a reserved candidate but she usurped the same by misrepresentation and deception. In our opinion, the fact that caste certificate was referred to the Scrutiny committee for verification after ten years of her joining the service and a long time was taken by the Scrutiny Committee to verify the same is of no consequence in as much as delay on both the counts does not validate the caste certificate and the consequent illegal appointment.”

¶25

Therefore, we find no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed.

¶26

Ashish Vishwanath Kanikbhat v. Bank of India Thru Its Zonal Manager and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Vishwanath Kanikbhat v. Bank of India Thru Its Zonal Manager and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

4ANAVATI Speciality Chemicals Pvt.Ltd.and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Godrej Industries Ltd. and 2 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nanavati Speciality Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dr. Shahnawaz Ahmed Siddiqui Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Dept. of Medical Education and 3 Ors.

Fehmida Abubakar Varakaya Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Ratnabai Hari Kamble and Ors. Vs M/S. Tata Mills and 2 Ors.