Disposed

Smt Akshata K S v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2023WP/1903/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ to quash suspension order and direct reinstatement and payment of sustenance allowance. Court disposed petition with liberty to file representation for revocation and directed bank to consider reinstatement and allowance claims within stipulated time.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to file representation for revocation of suspension and reinstatement; third respondent directed to consider relief and sustenance allowance within two weeks.

Smt Akshata K S Vs the State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 1903 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1903 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT AKSHATA K S W/O GURUDARSHAN G B AGED 32 YEARS IT MANAGER HEAD OFFICE, MANDYA DISTRICT CETNRAL CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD MANDYA 571401

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. JAI PRAKASH REDDY M.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES REP BY ITS SECRETARY

¶14

M S BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001

¶15

THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES MYSURU PUBLIC OFFICES BUILDING FORT MOHAL NEW SAYYAJI RAO ROAD MYSURU 570001

¶16

MANDYA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD MANDYA 571401 POST BOX NO 14

¶17

BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶18

¶19

WP No. 1903 of 2023

¶20

REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA CO OPERARTIVE SOCIETERIS ACT

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. M.S.NAGARAJA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. HITESH D., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SIDDARTH B. MUCHANDI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.12.2021 IN NO.ADALITHA.SIBHANDI 453.2021.22 PASSED BY THE R3 BANK VIDE ANNEXURE-A; DIRECT THE R3 BANK TO REINSTATE PETITIONER AND PAY FULL SALARY INCLUDING THE ARREARS; DIRECT THE R3 TO DISPOSE THE PROCEEDINGS IN DISPUTE NO.JRM/DDS/1976/2021.22 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner, who is an employee with the third respondent – M/s Mandya District Central Cooperative Bank Limited as IT Manager, has filed this petition calling in question the Suspension Order dated 29.12.2021 (Annexure-A) issued by the third respondent and for directions to the second respondent – the Joint Registrar of Co-operative

¶27

¶28

WP No. 1903 of 2023

¶29

Societies - to dispose of the pending dispute in No.eÉDgÉJA/rrJ¸ï/1976/2021-22.

¶30

Sri. Jai Prakash Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner and two [2] others are kept under suspension subject to a contemplated departmental enquiry. However, no proceedings are initiated notwithstanding the statutory mandate in that regard. The petitioner has called in question the Suspension Order by raising a dispute under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. The dispute is not considered within the statutorily stipulated time and as such, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.

¶31

Sri. Hitesh D., the learned counsel who appears for the third respondent, submits that indeed the petitioner and two [2] others were kept under suspension, but with the other two making a request for revocation of Suspension Order, the same is favorably considered and they are reinstated. If the

¶32

¶33

WP No. 1903 of 2023

¶34

petitioner makes a similar request, even she would be reinstated revoking the order of suspension.

¶35

In rejoinder, Sri. Jai Prakash Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that with effect from January 2023, the petitioner has not even been paid sustenance allowance and therefore, this Court may dispose of this petition in the light of the submission as aforesaid directing the third respondent to pass suitable orders expeditiously so that the petitioner’s grievance is really redressed.

¶36

In the light of these submissions, the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation with the third respondent for revocation of the Suspension Order dated 29.12.2021 (Annexure-A) and reinstatement, enclosing a certified copy of this order within a period of one [1] week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The third respondent is directed to consider, within two [2] weeks from the date of receipt of such

¶37

5 - WP No. 1903 of 2023

¶38

representation in accordance with the submissions now made before this Court and pass suitable orders for the petitioner’s reinstatement forthwith. The third respondent is also directed to consider the petitioner’s request for payment of sustenance allowance until the date of reinstatement.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Smt Akshata K S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Akshata K S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Anuradha Vs the State of Karnataka

The Mgm Education Society Vs the Director

Dr. B. S. Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. K. Santhosh Kumar Hegde Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt S Ambikamma Vs the Commissioner

Sri. B.R. Umesh Vs the Academy of Sanskrit Research