Ananthanaraynan v. The Bank Of India,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.10.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE Dr.D.NAGARJUN Ananthanaraynan ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Bank of India, Rep.by The Chairman and Managing Director, Bombay.

2. The Appellate Authority and The Deputy Zonal Manager, Bank Of India, Oppanakkara Street, Coimbatore.

3. The Disciplinary Authority and the Chief Manager, Bank Of India, Oppanakkara Street, Coimbatore.

4. The Enquiry Officer And The Chief Manager, Bank Of India, Kurichi Industrial Estate Branch, Sundarapuram Post, Coimbatore.

... Respondents 1/5

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent herein Ref. No. ZO CBE: IR: 164, by order dated 30-12-2005 subsequently confirmed by the 2nd respondent herein in Ref.No. ZO:CBE:IR: 256 by order dated 22.3.2006 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 3 here into reinstate the petitioner in service.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Karthik For Respondents : Mr.M.R.Raghavan

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed the writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent herein Ref. No. ZO CBE: IR: 164, by order dated 30-12-2005 subsequently confirmed by the 2nd respondent herein in Ref.No. ZO:CBE:IR: 256 by order dated 22.3.2006 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 3 here into reinstate the petitioner in service.

2/5

2. When the mater was listed on 05.10.2023 and also subsequently on 11.10.2023, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequent to filing of this writ petition in the year 2006, the writ petitioner has not contacted the office of the petitioner counsel and the petitioner counsel has made several attempts to contact him by sending letters to him which were returned with endorsements as "no such person".

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.V.Karthik further submitted that even as on today, there are no instructions.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner was working as a clerk in the first respondent Bank and he has committed the offence of forgery and thereby a detailed inquiry was conducted and he was ultimately removed from service. It is also submitted that whatever the benefits are required to be given to him has already been disbursed towards him.

5. Considering the submissions made by both sides, it is clear that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case any further. 3/5

6. Accordingly, with these observations, the writ petition stands dismissed for non prosecution. No costs.

18.10.2023 Index : Yes Speaking Order (sha) To

1. The Chairman and Managing Director, The Bank of India, Bombay.

2. The Appellate Authority and The Deputy Zonal Manager, Bank Of India, Oppanakkara Street, Coimbatore.

3. The Disciplinary Authority and the Chief Manager, Bank Of India, Oppanakkara Street, Coimbatore.

4. The Enquiry Officer And The Chief Manager, Bank Of India, Kurichi Industrial Estate Branch, Sundarapuram Post, Coimbatore.

4/5

Dr.D.NAGARJUN . J., (sha) 18.10.2023 5/5