Telangana High Court
WP/26308/2007 of Yelchuri Madhana Sudhakara Krishna, Vs The Chairman, Vijaya Bank, on 24 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No : 26308 of 2007 Between: Yelchuri Madhana Sudhakara Krishna, S/o
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA
WRIT PETITION No : 26308 of 2007
Between:
Yelchuri Madhana Sudhakara Krishna, S/o Phanibhushana Chary,Vijaya Bank, Chirala Branch, Chirala, R/o H.No.25-100, Bosenagar,Naidupeta,Chirala, Prakasam District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Chairman, Vijaya Bank, M.G.Road, Bangalore.
2 The Regional Manager, Vijaya Bank, Marutinagar, Masjid Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
3 The Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, Chirala Branch, Chirala, Prakasam District.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to to issue a writ , order or direction, more particularly a writ ofmandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not continuing thepetitioner as Jewel Appraiser in the 3rd respondent branch without passingany orders, without issuing any notice and without conducting any enquiryas illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violation of principles of natural justice, null andvoid and contrary to the agreement entered into by the respondents withthe petitioner on 25-5-2005 and consequently direct the respondents tocontinue the petitioner as Jewel Appraiser in the 3rd respondent branchand pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit andproper in the circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.SURENDER REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: MR.B.ADINARAYANA RAO
The Court made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaringthe action of the respondents in not continuing the petitioner as JewelAppraiser in the 3[rd] respondent branch without issuing any notice ororder and without conducting any enquiry, as illegal, arbitrary andcontrary to the agreement entered into by the respondents with thepetitioner on 25.05.2005 and consequently sought for a direction to therespondents to continue the petitioner as Jewel Appraiser in the 3[rd]respondent branch.
The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to Goldsmithcommunity and was appointed as Jewel Appraiser on 25.05.2005 bythe 3[rd] respondent with the permission of other respondents and anagreement was entered into between him and the respondents on thesame day. It is stated that despite the fact that the petitioner isdischarging his duties sincerely to the utmost satisfaction of the bankofficials, the 3[rd] respondent directed him orally not to attend the dutiesfrom 25.07.2007 as a complaint was received against him. Thereafter,the petitioner submitted representations to the 3[rd] respondent on06.08.2007, 20.10.2007 and 19.11.2007 seeking to continue him as aJewel Appraiser and to furnish the alleged copy of the complaint. Since the respondents did not respond to the said representations, thepetitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition.
A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Para-6 of the counter-affidavit reads as under:
“In reply to paragraphs 5 and 6, it is submitted that thisrespondent did not terminate the services of the petitioner. Itis submitted that on 19.07.2007 a complaint dated15.07.2007 from the customer of Chirala Branch wasreceived by the 2[nd] respondent about involvement of thepetitoner in various illegal activities, which is against theinterests of the bank. The same was forwarded to thisrespondent by the 2[nd] respondent on 24.07.2007. On thevery same day this respondent informed the petitioner about
the complaint which was received and he was asked forexplanation. Without submitting any reply, the petitioner from25.07.2007 onwards deliberately not attending the duties. “Jewel appraising is a highly tenchnical job and the jewelapraiser should be beyond suspicion. The petitioner is anaccused in a criminal case and shadow of suspicion haseclipsed him. On the initiation of criminal proceedingsagainst the petitioner by third parties, the petitioner stoppedattending the bank and failed to render services. It is furthersubmitted that the entrusting of work to the petitioner isabsolute discreitilon of the respondent bank.”
Heard both sides.
Having regard to the contentions made on eitherside, withoutgoing into the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that this writpetition can be disposed of at the admission stage in the followingmanner:
If the representations submitted by the petitioner are inexistence, the 3[rd] respondent may consider the same and passappropriate orders or otherwise the petitioner shall submit freshrepresentation to the 3[rd] respondent within a period of two weeks fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such representationbeing filed, the 3[rd] respondent shall consider the same and passappropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of fourweeks thereafter.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
_____________________________
(GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J)24-12-2008Note: C.C. in three days.(Bo)Gsn.