← Library
Madras High CourtCRP/4254/2024ordered

Augustine Samuel v. The Chief Manager

2024-10-24Honourable Mr Justice V. Lakshminarayanan7 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.10.2024 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.4254 of 2024 Augustine Samuel .. Petitioner

Versus

1.The Chief Manager Discipline and Fraud Monitoring Cell Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Head Office, 57, V.E.Road Thoothukudi - 628 002.

2.The General Manager Discipline and Fraud Monitoring Cell Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Head Office, 57, V.E.Road Thoothukudi - 628 002.

3.The Deputy General Manager Appellant Authority Discipline and Fraud Monitoring Cell Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Head Office, 57, V.E.Road Thoothukudi - 628 002.

4.The Assistant General Manager Disciplinary Authority Discipline and Fraud Monitoring Cell Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Head Office, 57, V.E.Road Thoothukudi - 628 002.

5.PA Raja Regional Manager Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram Regional Office Thiruvananthapuram.

6.DC Ravikumar Jewel Appraiser Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Ambur Branch, Ambur.

.. Respondents Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the learned Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri to number the suit filed in unnumbered O.S.SR.No.847 of 2024. For the Petitioner : Mr.M.Mohamed Afridi

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition arises against the repeated returns by the learned Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, in O.S.SR.No.847 of 2024.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the Branch Manager of Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited. According to him, he had been served with the

charge sheet dated 25.04.2024 and a subsequent charge sheet dated 15.05.2024. Despite the representation that was given by him, the disciplinary authority proceeded to pass orders. Thereafter, he was dismissed from service on 02.07.2024. Therefore, he preferred an appeal on 05.07.2024 to the appellate authority and the appeal was dismissed on 07.08.2024. Being left with no other option, seeking judicial intervention, he presented the suit in O.S.SR.No.847 of 2024 for declaration and other reliefs.

3. The learned Principal District Judge, returned the plaint stating as to how the suit is maintainable when the order of the 3rd and 4th respondents are appealable. The plaintiff complied with the return and re-presented the plaint pointing out that "the appeal is only inter management appeal and not a statutory one". Yet again the plaint was returned, pointing out that the previous return has not been complied with. Hence this revision.

4. I heard Mr.Mohamed Afridi for the Civil Revision Petitioner.

5. Mr.Mohamed Afridi points out that as per the Judgment of the

Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa, (Civil Appeal No.328 of 2005 dated 12.02.2009) the suit is maintainable. He points out that the revision as against the order of the 3rd and 4th respondents is one created under the contract of employment and is not a statutory appeal.

6. I have considered the submissions of Mr.Mohamed Afridi.

7. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is plenary, unless and until, it is barred impliedly or expressly. There is no statute which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, in this particular case. The plea of the plaintiff is that he was not heard prior to the passing of the orders questioned in the suit. If that be the situation, there is a violation of principles of natural justice.

8. A Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Dhulabhai B Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1968) 3 SCR 662] has held that a suit for enforcement of the right that is conferred under any law is very much

maintainable, especially when the plaintiff pleads that there is violation of principles of natural justice.

9. Apart from this, the Judgment pointed out by Mr.Mohamed Afridi clearly holds that there is jurisdiction in a Civil Court to deal with such issues. When that Judgment is drawn to the attention of the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, it is expected that the Principal District Judge would go through the said Judgment and thereafter, pass appropriate orders. Instead to repeat the very same return as was made on 12.09.2024 and 23.09.2024 does not pass muster. I am not inclined to send the matter again to the Principal District Judge as it will only increase agony of the litigant waiting for his proceedings to be numbered by a Court.

10. Furthermore, in the case of Selvaraj and Ors. Vs. Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Limited, Represented through its Project Director in CRP(MD) Nos.915, 943, 967, 991 & 330 of 2020 dated 16.07.2021, has held that it is not the duty of the Court to play the role of the defendant at the time of numbering the plaint.

11. In the light of the above discussions, there shall be a direction to the learned Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, to number the plaint in O.S.SR.No.847 of 2024, if it is otherwise in order. This Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.

24.10.2024 Index : Yes / No Internet:Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Jer Note:Registry to return the original plaint to the petitioner, after obtaining necessary endorsements.

To The Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri.

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J., Jer Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.4254 of 2024 24.10.2024