Allowed

Shalini C.D v. Kerala Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC18 May 2022WP(C)/15609/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, a bank employee challenged her suspension, transfer, and show-cause memo before the High Court. The Court exercised limited jurisdiction, holding that the scope under Article 226 regarding suspension is restricted to jurisdictional errors or perversity.

What did the court decide?

Directions to expedite disciplinary proceedings within two months, disburse subsistence allowance within two weeks, consider petitioner in DPC if convened, and provide defense opportunities.

Shalini C.D Vs Kerala Bank Ltd. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 18THDAY OF MAY 2022 / 28TH VAISAKHA,1944
WP(C) NO. 15609 OF 2022

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

SHALINI C.D
AGED 46 YEARS
DAUGHTER OF DEVASSIA, CHEMPLYIEL HOUSE, ADIMALY P.O
IDUKKI DISTRICT, NOW WORKING AS ACCOUNTANT, KERALA
BANK LTD, CPC, IDUKKI.

¶6

BY ADVS.
V.JOHN MANI
JACKSON JOHNY
VARGHESE SABU
SETHULAKSHMI K.K.
DIANA LAURENCE PAUL

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1KERALA BANK LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CO- BANK TOWERS, P.B. NO. 6515, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶9

2 REGIONAL MANAGER, KOTTAYAM REGIONAL OFFICE, KERALA BANK LTD., P.B. NO. 140 CENTRAL JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM- 686 001.

¶10

3 DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (IDUKKI CPC), KERALA BANK LTD, IDUKKI COLONY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 502.

¶11

4 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA BANK LTD., CO-BANK TOWERS, P.B. NO. 6515, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 033.

¶12

5 AREA MANAGER, KERALA BANK LTD, ADIMALY AREA, IDUKKI DISTRICT685 561.

¶13

W.P.(C) No. 15609 of 2022

¶14

¶15

6 BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA BANK LTD, ADIMALY EVENING BRANCH, ADIMALY, IDUKKI DISTRICT- 685 561.

¶16

SRI GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA, SC

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C) No. 15609 of 2022

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶22

I. To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other writ, order or direction to call for the entire records leading to Ext.P8 memorandum of suspension and to quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to consider the suspension period of petitioner as duty.

¶23

II. To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other writ, order or direction to call for the entire records leading to Ext.P3 show cause memorandum and to quash all further proceedings pursuant to the same.

¶24

III. To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other writ, order or direction to call for the records leading to Ext.P5 order of the 6th respondent and to quash the same and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in the present duty as engaged by the respondents prior to Ext.P5 order.

¶25

It is the case of the petitioner that while working as an Accountant in the Adimaly Evening Branch of the 1st respondent Bank, she was transferred without adequate cause or reason to the CPC Idukki. It is contended that the transfer affected as aforesaid on frivolous grounds is unjust, arbitrary and punitive. Challenging the order of transfer, the petitioner approached this Court and by Exhibit P6 judgment, the 2nd respondent was ordered to consider the

¶26

W.P.(C) No. 15609 of 2022

¶27

¶28

representation filed by the petitioner. Her representation was however rejected on unsustainable grounds. While working at CPC Idukki, the 4th respondent has issued Exhibit P8 order of suspension alleging that the petitioner committed acts of insubordination towards her superiors and dereliction of duty. It is submitted that the order of suspension was passed without any materials whatsoever, and without taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. It is also contended that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings is with intent to stall the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Manager for which purpose, the respondents have failed to include the name of the petitioner in the seniority list and also in the DPC which is convened for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Manager.

¶29

Sri. Gilbert George Correya, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submitted that essentially what is under challenge in this petition is the order of suspension passed by the 4th respondent. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Ajit Singh [(1997) 11 SCC 368], the learned counsel submitted that scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in orders of suspension is limited to cases of lack of jurisdiction, mala fides, or perversity and it has been further held that the question as to whether charges are malicious, baseless or vindictive cannot

¶30

W.P.(C) No. 15609 of 2022

¶31

¶32

be decided at the stage of issuance of the order of suspension and it is always advisable to allow the disciplinary proceedings to go on unhindered. The learned counsel would also rely on U.P.Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others v. Sanjiv Rajan [1993 Supp. (3) SCC 483] and it is argued that whether or not the employee should or should not continue in service during enquiry is a matter to be assessed by the authorities concerned and ordinarily, the Court should not interfere in orders of suspension.

¶33

I have heard Sri.John Mani V, the learned counsel who reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. It is submitted that the disciplinary proceedings are being dragged on to stall the promotional prospects of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the respondents have also failed to disburse the subsistence allowance and other benefits to which the petitioner is legitimately entitled to.

¶34

Sri.Gilbert George Correya, the learned Standing Counsel submits that steps would be taken to conclude the disciplinary proceedings which have been set in motion in an expeditious manner. According to the learned counsel, if the petitioner is entitled to subsistence allowance and the same has not been paid, the same will be disbursed without any delay. It is also submitted that there are no prospects of promotion to the petitioner at this stage and the

¶35

W.P.(C) No. 15609 of 2022

¶36

¶37

assertions to the contra in the writ petition is baseless.

¶38

I have considered the submissions advanced. Having gone through the facts and circumstances, and the principles laid down in the precedents cited by both sides, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not made any case for interference with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her on any sustainable grounds. The petitioner would be able to raise all her contentions in her defence in the disciplinary proceeding and the disciplinary authority will be required to address itself to each of them and pass a reasoned order. I am of the view that directions can be issued to the respondents to expedite the proceedings and take the matter to its logical conclusion within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The respondents are also bound to disburse the subsistence allowance to which the petitioner is entitled as per law.

¶39

In view of the above discussion, while disposing of this writ petition, the following directions are issued.

¶40

(a)There will be a direction to the respondents to expedite the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the strength of Exhibit P8 and conclude the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶41

W.P.(C) No. 15609 of 2022

¶42

¶43

The respondents shall afford all reasonable opportunities to the petitioner to defend herself in such proceedings.

¶44

(b)Pending conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding, the respondents shall disburse the subsistence allowance to which the petitioner is entitled to. Necessary orders shall be passed for disbursement of the subsistence allowance within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶45

(c) If DPC is proposed to be convened before the completion of the disciplinary proceedings, the respondents shall include the name of the petitioner in the seniority list and consider her name in the

¶46

DPC convened for that purpose. It is made clear that consideration of the name of the petitioner for promotion shall be subject to the order to be passed in the disciplinary proceedings.

¶47

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

IAP

¶52

W.P.(C) No. 15609 of 2022

¶53

¶54

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15609/2022

¶55

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:

¶56

`Exhibit P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORD OF THE` `PETITIONER .`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY OF THE` `PETITIONER AND THE CHILD FROM THE CARITHAS` `HOSPITAL, KOTTAYAM DATED 23.01.2016.`
`Exhibit P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOWCAUSE MEMO DATED` `21.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF REPLY TO SHOWCAUSE DATED` `12.11.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER .`
`Exhibit P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED` `31.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P6`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.` `30917 OF 2021 DATED 31.12.2021 OF THIS` `HON'BLE COURT.`
`Exhibit P7`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.` `HRM/394/SHALINI C.D./882/2021-22 DATED` `31.12.2021 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P8`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF` `SUSPENSION DATED 29.04.2022 ISSUED BY THE` `4TH RESPONDENT.`

¶57

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL

Shalini C.D v. Kerala Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shalini C.D v. Kerala Bank Ltd.

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

Pranav G. Mohan Vs Kerala University of Health Sciences

Mr.Nabeel Sajid Vs the Kerala University of Health Sciences

Midhun Jemsin, Vs Kerala University for Health Sciences

Meera K Vs Apm Muhammed Hanish

M.L Augusthy Vs Sheeba George I.A.S

Malabar Medical College Hospital & Research Centre, Vs State of Kerala