This single-judge Court dismissed a Writ Appeal against an earlier order that rejected legal heirs' attempt to convert a deceased employee's dismissal into compulsory retirement. The Court held that heirs lacked locus standi as the employee did not challenge the order during his lifetime.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.09.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
WRIT APPEAL NO.233 OF 2018
... Appellants
.Vs.
The Deputy General Manager, Disciplinary Authority, Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Central office, Erode Road, Karur – 639 219. ... Respondent
PRAYER:-
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 04.10.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.SR.No.95830 of 2017.
Prayer in W.P.SR.No.95830 of 2017:-
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to modify the punishment of Dismissal to the first petitioner's husband namely Late K.P.Rajagopal issued on 15.02.2000 as Compulsory Retirement and quash the same.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi
For Respondent : Mr.Anand For M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court delivered by S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.)
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 04.10.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.SR.No.95830 of 2017.
“3. But this Court is absolutely at a loss to appreciate the prayer made by the Petitioners for the following three reasons:
3.1. Firstly, when the first petitioner's husband suffered a punishment of dismissal from service way back on 15.02.2000, he has not even chosen to challenge the said order, probably for the reason that, the said order was found to be reasonable to him. Only after his death on 09.07.2014, the Petitioners, on coming to know of the punishment which has taken away the right to receive the pension, have chosen to file the Writ Petition along with the Petition under Rule 2-B of Appendix V of the Appellate Side Rules, which cannot be entertained.
3.2. Secondly, when the delinquent himself did not choose to challenge the order of dismissal for 14 years from 15.02.2000 till 08.07.2014, as he died on 09.07.2014, it is not known how his wife and children can come to this Court seeking modification of the order of punishment.
3.3. Thirdly, if the Writ Petitions of this type are allowed to be entertained, there would not be any sanctity to the departmental disciplinary proceedings.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
(aeb)
To
The Deputy General Manager, Disciplinary Authority, Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Central office, Erode Road, Karur – 639 219.
+1cc to M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co., Vide S.R.No.44040
WRIT APPEAL No.233 OF 2018
SSI(CO) PBS/22/09/2021
3 issues framed by the court
Whether legal heirs can challenge a post-dismissal order imposed on a deceased employee long after his death.
Whether maintenance of dept pleading principle applies to a private bank.
Whether a writ petition challenging a disciplinary decision made decades ago can be entertained on death of the employee.
R.Geethanjali
R.Renuka Devi
R.Shyam Sundar
R.Jayashree
Deputy General Manager, Disciplinary Authority, Karur Vysya Bank Limited
S.Vaidyanathan
A.A.Nakkiran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
