Petitioner, dismissed from service, filed a writ petition for a mandamus directing disciplinary authorities to conduct an enquiry into ATM violations and take action against specific bank employees. The Court denied the petition.
Writ petition disposed of; no direction to conduct enquiry or take action granted.
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.
W.P(MD)No.918 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.918 of 2021 and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.771, 774, 777 of 2021
S.Raja
... Petitioner
Vs.
1/4
W.P(MD)No.918 of 2021
5.Hamilta, Customer Assistant, SBI, Valliyur Branch, Tirunelveli District - 627117.
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to conduct an enquiry for the serious violations of ATM rules on 14.08.2015 at Thingal Nagar Branch as evident from CCTV footage dated 14.08.2015 and take legal action against respondents 4 to 7.
For Petitioner : Mrs.K.Sumathi for Mr.S.Suresh
For Respondents : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel, For Mr.M.Ponnaiah, Standing Counsel.
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.
2/4
W.P(MD)No.918 of 2021
2.The petitioner herein was dismissed from service by the third respondent vide order dated 23.07.2021. He questioned the same in WP(MD)No.14100 of 2021. The dismissal order was set aside by me and the matter has been remitted for conducting further enquiry. The petitioner is a delinquent. He cannot seek a direction against the employer for conducting the petition mentioned enquiry which is the subject matter of disciplinary action. It is open to the petitioner herein to raise this ground as a defence plea in the enquiry. If the direction sought for by the petitioner is granted, it will impinge on the manner in which the disciplinary enquiry is to be conducted. The petitioner also cannot insist that action should be taken against the private respondents herein. They are employees of State Bank of India and whether to take action against them is left to the discretion of the employer. The petitioner has placed certain facts before the employer and it is for the competent authority to decide. It is not open to this Court to issue any positive direction.
3.With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
11.10.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias/skm
3/4
W.P(MD)No.918 of 2021
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias/skm
W.P(MD)No.918 of 2021
11.10.2022
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court can direct the employer to conduct an enquiry into serious violations of ATM rules despite the petitioner being the subject of ongoing disciplinary action.
Whether the Court can direct the employer to take legal action against specific employees (private respondents) in a disciplinary matter.
Whether the petitioner can insist that action be taken against private respondent employees of State Bank of India.
S.Raja
Deputy General Manager, (Disciplinary Authority), Administrative Officer, State Bank of India
Regional Manager, State Bank of India
Assistant General Manager (OAD), State Bank of India
Lavanya
Hamilta
G.R.Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
