A bank manager under suspension challenged his suspension and the appellate rejection of his appeal. The court held guilt is to be established in departmental proceedings, not in a writ petition; it upheld both orders but directed completion of the enquiry within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:31578 WP No. 16737 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 16737 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHRI RAMACHANDRA R. (STAFF NO. 70337) AGED 55 YEARS, S/O RANGAPPA, WORKING AS MANAGER, TUMKUR REGIONAL OFFICE (UNDER ORDERS OF SUSPENSION) R/AT 1188, 9TH MAIN, 11TH 'A' CROSS, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU-560086.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER
NC: 2024:KHC:31578 WP No. 16737 of 2024
QUASHING THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.BLC/HRM/DAC/F3749-1/2024 OF SUSPENSION DATED 02.01.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO THE 1ST RESPONDENT'S IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.05.2024 REJECTING PETITIONER'S APPEAL VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has challenged an order dated 02.01.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 suspending him from service. He has also challenged an order dated 24.05.2024 passed by the respondent No.1 rejecting an appeal filed by him.
25.04.2024 directing the respondent No.1 to decide the appeal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the said order. Following this, the respondent No.1 passed an order dated 24.05.2024 rejecting the appeal. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the order of suspension dated 02.01.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 as well as the order dated 24.05.2024 passed by the respondent No.1.
NC: 2024:KHC:31578 WP No. 16737 of 2024
Articles of charge is already served on the petitioner on 20.07.2024. Therefore, he contends that there is no need to interfere with the impugned order of suspension.
counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
However, since the respondents have now claimed that Articles of charge is already served on the petitioner, it would be appropriate to direct the respondents to conclude the enquiry as early as possible and at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
SMA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suspension order dated 02.01.2024 under Regulation 12 of the Canara Bank Discipline and Appeal Regulations could be interfered with in a writ petition.
Whether the Appellate Authority's order rejecting the appeal against suspension was sustainable.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shri Ramachandra R.
The Deputy General Manager and the Appellate Authority, Canara Bank Circle Office
The Assistant General Manager, Canara Bank, Circle Office
R. Nataraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
