Disposed

J.Prakash, Hyd v. Gm, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai and 5 Others

Telangana HC28 Oct 2024WP/31765/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-bench order dismissed a writ petition seeking reinstatement to service with back wages. The Court held the petition was not maintainable against a private bank and granted the petitioner liberty to approach the appropriate authority.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs remain to be passed against the respondents.

J.Prakash, Hyd Vs Gm, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^33E4 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYD€RABAD}

¶3

(SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY,^{THE TWENTY EIGHTHDAY OF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY FOUR}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEANIL KUMARJUKANTI}

¶7

WRiT PETITI^{ON NO31765} oF 2013

¶8

Between:

¶9

vears. Occ Ex-Ernployee,^{Rl/o 404, Ravi} J.PRAKASH,^{S/o.AnjaneYulu,Aged 57} Chandra Apartments,^{106-1 07' Kartikeya} iltagii, Nlacharam,^{Hyderabad-s0O076'}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 If,n:::B:"tB,3i1,%'"TJ"i#8"?lJ"'.,?iB#"%1lir?fJ:sf,T'UeBf,?j Singh Marm,^Mumbai-4.

¶13

2 The Union of^{lndia, Rep by its PrincipalSecretary' Ministryof Finance'New} Delhi.

¶14

3, The DBS Bank^{Ltd.,, Rep by its ManagingDirector'} ^Regd^{and Administrative} noaA' Kdrur, Tamilnadu^{State - 639006}

¶15

" Oti"" "iS"lrm

¶16

4 THE Enquiry^{Ofticer,The ChiefMana-ger'Auditand lnsoection'TheDBS} Bank Ltd ,^{Regdand niiii"iJiilii,;li-cjfrie'atSelam Road' Karur' ramilnadu} State^- 639^O06.

¶17

5 The Disciplinary^{Authority,The Dy' General Manager' BPRDept '-TheDBS} omce it Selafr^{Road' Karur' ramilnadu}

¶18

" B;;iifi: n"gt "nA'Xd#iriiiiiaii'ii' state^- 639^006.

¶19

6 The Appellate^{Authority, General-Manager' P&D Deoartment' The DBS Bank} Ltd., Resd and^{AdminiiirJti-*-oiiciiitS"timRoad, Karur, Tamilnadustate -} 639 006.

¶20

As oer C.O. dated^{28t1Ot2O24vide l'A'l'lo"tot 2024 in WPNo'31765of} 2013. CT is amended.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under^{Article 226 of the Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filedtherewith' the Hlgh Courtmay be} pleased to issue an appropriate^{order or direction more particularly'one in the} nature of^{Writ of Mandamus,by calling records' declaringthe orders d'ated-} 26.09.2013^{passedby the 6th respondent andthe ordersdated-26'07 2013}

¶23

¶24

passed by the Sth respondent^{are illegal, arbitrary,null, void, in collusionand} unconstitutional^{and consequentlydirect the 3rd respondentto reinstatethe} petitioner into service by^{granting all service benefitswith back wagesfrom th€} date of illegal susPension.

¶25

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2013(WPMP.^{NO: 457 30 0F 2013)}

¶26

Petition under Section^{151 cPCpraying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay} all further^{proceedings pursuantto the notice Ref:LVB/102.09.03/650/2013-14,} Dt: 6.1 1 .2013,^{pending disposal of the Writ Petition.}

¶27

l.A. NO:¹ OF^{2013(WPMP.NO : 39469 OF2013)}

¶28

Petition under^{section151 cPCpraying that in the ciroumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the Highcourt may be pleased to} suspend the discharging^{orderdaled:26.07.2013and order dated:26.09.2013} passed by the respondents 5 & 6,^{pending disposal of the writ petition and pass}

¶29

Counsel for the^{Petitioner: SRI GOPALA RAOAMANCHARLA V}

¶30

counsel for the^{Respondent No.1&2 :SRtGADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY.SO.GEN}

¶31

Counsel for the^{Respondents No.3to6 : Mrs.UMA DEVI' SC FOR BANK}

¶32

The Court made the^{following: OROER}

¶33

¶34

THE HON,BLE SHRI^{JUSTICEANIL KUMARJUKANTI} WRIT PETITIO^{N No.31765OF 2013}

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

This writ petition^{is filed secking the following relicf:}

¶37

"to an appropiate^{order or direction more} patliatlarly, one in the^{nature of Witof} Mandamus, by calling^{records,declaingthe} orders clated^{26.09.2013 passed bythe 6th} responrlent and the -orders^{dated 26.07'2O13} passed bA lhe^{Sth respondent are illegal, arbitrary,} 'nutl, uoid, tn collusion and unconstitutional ond consequentlg direct^{the 3'd resryndent to reinstate} the petittoner into^{seruiceb11 granting all seruit:e} berrelits tuith back^wages from^{the date of illegctl} su s1-rcrtsicrtt arl,d^{pa.sssuch olLer order or csrdersas} thti i ton ble^{Ctturl may deem} fit^{and pruper in the} circuntstances^{of the case."}

¶38

¶39

Ht:arrd V. Gopala^{Rao Amancharla,learned counselfor} petitioner and Mrs.^{Uma Devi, learnedStanding Counsel firr} rcspondetrts.

¶40

Duling tht:^{L-or-trse ofsubmissions,learned Standing} CoLlnscl iirr rcspontic,rlts^{subrnitLcd that writ petitionisllled} against zr privatc^{bank and the maintainability of n'rit petitionis} the issue.

¶41

Whc'n this Court^{qucricd whetherthis Court should go into} thc arspcct of maintainability^{of writ petition, learnc'd counselfor}

¶42

¶43

petitioner submitted that petitioner be granted liberty to approach appropriate forum.

¶44

Keeping in vieu' the submissions made by both the counsels, this Court of the considered opinion that petitioner be granted liberty to approach appropriate authoriry/ Court.

¶45

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of leaving open to

¶46

petitioner to avail remedics as per law. No order as to costs.

¶47

Miscellane<>us applic.rtions pcnding, if any, shall stand

¶48

closed.

¶49

SD/-^N,SRiHARI GTSTRAR AS //TRUE^COPY// l OFFICER \

¶50

¶51

To, ,Ilen,sili,?!Yfl l'?5''.,ff :"33",?3"5,,%'81ifla,ft:Tt',"'n,3Th'3"1"gllfn?

¶52

rHlj,+mlitrr,ml;s.";;;':+:'.ru;

¶53

i[""1y';L:'3j':

¶54

'Eilill;i,,s?tflY.ii;,11"%??rJ;'oJ:ij*'Hv"f State^{- 639 ooo}

¶55

uH:-o.ir'fl "H:flffi^{.,nRB?l:11%tHsJ''Iis5:*'.?:3:ffii]:''-ili"Pi:} t??Y':r'r^{nd a)}

¶56

i. $ti.ffi Ff^rffiTffi BSK

¶57

BSR V-

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:2811012024

ORDER

1 l-4 ,C.
o*
(j 2 I ,lAi\l 2il25
oz
)
I o Fs PAT c

¶64

WP.No.31765 of 2013

¶65

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶66

coP(ai
v- k,

J.Prakash, Hyd v. Gm, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Prakash, Hyd v. Gm, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai and 5 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

M.Prakash, Vs Andhra Bank

Ch Srinivasu Vs Transmission Corporation of Telangana Ltd.

Y.Pushpa Raju, Vs The State of Telangana

J. Prakash, S/o. Anjaneyulu Vs The Reserve Bank of India

M. S. Govinda Raju S/o. S. Srinivas, Vs The Union of India

Bharti Srivastava, Vs Union of India