Allowed

Ranajit Mahapatra v. The Chief Manager, And 2 Others

Telangana HC19 Apr 2021WP/5991/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the inaction of the Appellate Authority in disposing of a petitioner's appeal regarding his removal from service. It directed the authority to decide the appeal within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Appellate Authority to consider and dispose of the appeal filed on 27.11.2020 within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

Ranajit Mahapatra Vs The Chief Manager… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

[/ONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 5991 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ranajit Mahapatra, S/o Pithambhram Mahapatra, Aged about 35^years, Occ.^Assistant Mandger (Removed from service), lndian Overseas Bank, Uanmakonda^Branch, Warangal District, Fyo C/o Pitambar Mahapatra at Kamasasan, P.O.^{Basudevpur,Pud} District' odisha-752013'

¶9

...pETrroNER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Chief Manager, lndian Overseas Bank, 2nd Line, Warangal^{RegionalOffice,} O/o 2-4-686, 3rd floor, ABK Mall, Old bus Depot Road,^{Ram Nagar,} Hanmakonda, Warangal-506001^.

¶12

The Appellate Authorily, Deputy General Manager, lndian Overseas^Bank, Centril disciplinary and conduct cell, Central Office, CHENNAI.

¶13

The Senior Regional Manager, Disciplinary^{Authority, lndian OverseasBank,} Olo 2-4-686,3id floor, ABK Mall, Old bus^{Depot Road, Ram Nagar,} Hanmakonda, Warangal-506001.

¶14

...RES.ONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court may be pleased} to issue a writ, order or direction,^{more particularlyone in the natureof Writ of} ltrlandamus declaring the action of the^{respondentNo.2 in not disposingof the} appeal dated 27t11t2O20 filed^{against the order dated 16/11/2020 inspite of} reminder representation on 22t0112021 is^{arbitraryand illegal and consequently} direct the respondent No.2^{to dispose of the appeal dated 2711112020.}

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶17

Petition under section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High court maybe pleased to issue a} direction to the respondent^{No.2to disposeof the appeal dated2711112020pending} disposal of the above Writ^Petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s.^{N. MALATHINAIDU}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents:^{SRI E. MADAN MOHAN RAO}

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

I t

¶22

HON'BLE] SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUNIAR SHAVILI

¶23

\,. P. o.5991 o 2021

¶24

O&DE&r

¶25

'Ihis \'rit l)etition is tiled seeking thc lbllou,ing relicll

¶26

tlt i,uc .l \ rit, ()r(lcr r)r dit.ection, nrorc pal,ticuLlrl. ()nc in tltc outu(. (,f \'r.il of flatrdurDus dcclaring thc action of tlc tcsp,lldent :-r),:r in nr)t disposing of thlj uppcal datcd 2t-.1t.!o2o filcd agairrst the ordcr.dated 16,r1.2o2o in spitc (,f renriuder representation on 22.l.2oat is arbitrary.and illcl;al nnd conscquenth, direct r.espondent No.2 to disposc of tlre appeal dated z7,rr.zo2o and to pass such othor order or orders appropriate in the case.,,

¶27

Fleard learned counsel on either side,

¶28

It is the case of the petitioner that he is working as a Manager in the respondent-Bank. Wrile so, on the a[egation of misappropriation of funds, the disciplinary alrthority removed him from sen,icc ride ord,er dated 16.11.2020. Aggrievccl by the same, tl-re petitioner has prefcrred an appeal belore rhe appellarc authorirv on 2i.'11.2020. BLr(, so far, no orders hzlve been passerl thc re on.

¶29

Lcirrncd counsel appearing for the petitioner contended rllar the appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the appellare authority to consider and dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner on27.11.2020.

¶30

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondenr_ Bank contendr:d that since the appeal IS pending before the

¶31

appellate authorityr^{the apP€llateauthoritywouldconsider the} same and pass^{appropdate otders, in accordancewith law'}

¶32

Having considered^{the rival submissions made by the} lcarned counsel^{on eitherside, this Court is of the view that this} \Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the appcllate^authoritv to consider and^{dispose of the appealprefcrredbv the petitioner} on 27 ,11.2020^{andpassappropriate orders, in accordancewith larv'} preferably, within^{a period of two months,from the datc of rcccipt} of a copy of^{this order.}

¶33

Accordingly, the^{Wtit Petitionis disposed of' No costs'}

¶34

Miscellaneous tltlons, ending, if any^{shall standclosed.}

¶35

Sd/.V.SUDHA ASSISTANT 'R'2 ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chief Manager, lndian Overseas Bank, 2nd Line. V Res iona r off ice, O/o Ha nmakonda, 2-4-686, 3rd-ftoor. wu.uno, ABKr_sogii^{:6ii ;;,1 B"p", Hi* sliiRSr} 2. The Appellate Authoriiy, Deputy Generar -C Manager, rndian overseas Bank. C.en tra I d i scjp I i na ry a n6 co n'd uir ce r i, e ntra r 5ili"","c-i r r.r r,rn r 3. tne Jentor Reqional [VIanager, .Disciplinary Authority. lndian Overseas Bank, o/o 2-4-686, 3id ftoor es(Mail, otJbr; b;iliHoio nam r.tri.i, -" "- " Hanmakonda, Waranqal-50600i^{- - "--vvYv! I \vuu'} 4 9ne Q9^{to M/s.N. MitathiNaidu,Advocate} IOPUCI 5 9nu 99^{to Sri E. Madan MohanRao} Aa";Ai; t-OEuCt 6 Two CD Copies CHR oY

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910412021

ORDER

W.P.No.5991 of 2021

:{i"" -zz:F=:\ srari<br>t
o rl|g ,i,i:r i!21
.r-_)
i-

¶42

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

Ranajit Mahapatra v. The Chief Manager, And 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranajit Mahapatra v. The Chief Manager, And 2 Others

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

R. Ramakrishna Vs The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration and 3 Others

Jodu Lingaiah, Vs Sri N. Sridhar and 3 others

Gopu Pochaiah, Vs Sri N. Sridhar and 3 others

K.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Vs The District Collector (Tw)

Kinnera Laxman Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Raj Kumar Pasi Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited and 2 Others