Disposed

P.Saranayaki, v. the General Manager/

Madras HC19 Dec 2016WP/1306/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of a disciplinary order. The court acknowledged the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing a review application with the Executive Director before the bank's appellate authority.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to prefer review application within two weeks; respondent directed to pass orders on merits within eight weeks.

P.Saranayaki, Vs the General Manager/ — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 19.12.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P. No.1306 of 2011

¶6

and M.P.No.1 of 2011

¶7

P.Saranayaki .. Petitioner
Vs
1. The General Manager
Appellate Authority, Indian Bank
Circle Office, Vigilance Section,
55, Ethiraj Salai,
Chennai 600 008.
2. The Deputy General Manager,
Disciplinary Authority, Indian Bank,
Circle Office, Vigilance Section,
55, Ethiraj Salai,
Chennai 600 008.
3. The Assistant General Manager,
Indian Bank,
Harbour Branch,
66, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai 600 001. .. Respondents

¶8

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order call for the records pertaining to the order CO:CH:CS:No.NV:1121:2008-09, dated 12.05.2008 as confirmed by the 1st respondent vide his order dated 29.11.2008 and quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.PL.Narayanan For Respondents : Mr.T.Sundar Rajan for R1 to R3

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of writ of certiorari calling for records pertaining to the order CO:CH:CS:No.NV:1121:2008-09, dated 12.05.2008 as confirmed by the first respondent vide his order dated 29.11.2008 and quash the same.

¶13

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the Order of the first respondent, the petitioner has the remedy to file a review before the Executive Director of the Respondent Bank. Without exhausting the remedy, the above Writ Petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this ground itself.

¶14

In view of the submissions made in the counter affidavit this writ petition is disposed of with liberty, the petitioner is directed to prefer the review application within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter the respondent is directed to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks.

¶15

Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶16

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar

¶17

¶18

The General Manager Appellate Authority, Indian Bank Circle Office, Vigilance Section, 55, Ethiraj Salai, Chennai 600 008.

¶19

The Deputy General Manager, Disciplinary Authority, Indian Bank, Circle Office, Vigilance Section, 55, Ethiraj Salai, Chennai 600 008.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

The Assistant General Manager, Indian Bank, Harbour Branch, 66, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.

¶22

+1CC to Mr.T.Sundarrajan, Advocate SR No.74206.

¶23

LRS(CO) SK(22/12/2016)

¶24

W.P. No.1306 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

P.Saranayaki, v. the General Manager/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Saranayaki, v. the General Manager/

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

K.Duraisamy Vs the Tamilnadu Slum Clearance

S. Shanmugavelu Vs the Chief Engineer (Personal)

V.a.Viswanathan, Vs the General Manager

Mr.Ammasi Vs the Principal Chief Engineer

B.Dhamodaran, Vs the District Revenue Officer

G.Saminathan, Vs the Regional Transport