Dismissed¶31

R.D.Murthy v. Punjab National Bank

Madras HC11 Aug 2025WP/11537/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

dismissal for non-prosecution; no representation; For Dismissal caption; Article 226; writ of certiorarified mandamus; Punjab National Bank; removal from service; Appellate Authority order Ref:HRDD/DAC/15268 dt.31.08.2010; removal order Ref: AGM(P) dt.7.12.1988; reinstatement with continuity; back wages; suspension regularisation 16.12.1985 to 24.02.1987; superannuation and pension benefits; 12% interest; Madras High Court; Mummeneni Sudheer Kumar J.; W.P.No.11537 of 2011; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no appearance by petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Since there was no representation for the petitioner on 11.08.2025 despite the matter being listed under the caption 'For Dismissal', the court was left with no other option except to dismiss the writ petition for non-prosecution. ¶30

R.D.Murthy Vs Punjab National Bank — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.11537 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.11537 of 2011

¶7

R.D.Murthy ... Petitioner(s)

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Punjab National Bank, Rep. by its Chairman cum Managing Director, No.7, Bhicajicama Place, New Delhi – 110 066.

¶10

The Deputy General Manager, Punjab National Bank, No.7, Bhicajicama Place, New Delhi – 110 066.

¶11

Mr.A.R.Subramaniyam

¶12

Mr.R.K.Gupta

¶13

Mr.V.S.Vasan

¶14

General Manager, HRD Division (Appellate Authority), C/o Punjab National Bank, No.7, Bhicajicama Place, New Delhi – 110 066.

¶15

General Manager, HRD Division (Appellate Authority), C/o Punjab National Bank, No.7, Bhicajicama Place, New Delhi – 110 066.

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

W.P.No.11537 of 2011

¶20

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st and 6th respondent in connection with the orders of the Appellate Authority bearing Ref:HRDD/DAC/15268 dt.31.08.2010, confirming the order of removal bearing Ref: AGM(P) dt.7.12.1988 and quash the same and direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service notionally with effect from the date of his removal from service, with continuity of service, arrears of pay (back-wages) and all other consequent benefits till the date of his retirement on 28.2.1997, including by paying him the benefits of revision of pay based on promotion due to him with effect from the date of promotion of his immediate junior to all the higher levels he will be entitled to till the date of his superannuation and further direct the respondent bank to regularize the period of suspension between 16.12.1985 and 24.02.1987 as one of duty and pay him the full pay for the said period and settle his superannuation benefits including giving him the option for pension from the date such pension scheme came into force and pay him arrears thereof with further direction to pay interest at 12% per annum for all such amounts due to him from the date on which they became due and issue such further or other appropriate orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

¶21

For Petitioner(s) : No appearance For R1 : Mr.P.Raghunathan for M/s.T.S.Gopalan @ Co.,

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This writ petition came up for consideration before this court on 04.07.2025

¶24

and the same was adjourned at the instance of learned counsel for the petitioner to get instructions from the petitioner. Again, the matter was listed before this court on 21.07.2025. As there was no representation for the petitioner on that date, the

¶25

Page 2 of 5

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.No.11537 of 2011

¶28

same was directed to be listed under the caption “For Dismissal'.

¶29

Today, inspite of the matter being listed under the caption

¶30

“For Dismissal', there is no representation for the petitioner either during the pre-lunch or post-lunch session. In the circumstances, this court is left with no other option except to dismiss the writ petition for non-prosecution.

¶31