Madras High CourtWP(MD)/4101/2016dismissed

Sembu Harinath v. The Regonal Head(Madurai)

2022-09-29Honourable Mrs Justice S.Srimathy4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.09.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY and W.M.P.(MD)No. 3676 of 2016 Sembu Harinath ... Petitioner vs.

1. The Regional Head (Madurai), Disciplinary Authority, Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, II Floor, Aparna Towers, 2, 3, Bye Pass Road, Ponmeni, Madurai - 625016.

2. B. Srinivasan (Enquiry Officer), Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Ponmeni Branch, Madeira.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the impugned enquiry report of the 2nd respondent, dated 10.09.2015 in RO.MADU.VIG.01/72 and consequential impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings RO.MADU.VIG.02/17 dated 05.02.2016 and quash 1/4

the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to reopen the departmental proceedings by providing the petitioner to adduce additional evidence and witnesses besides granting the petitioner an opportunity in fair manner as per the settled principles of law.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prahalad Ravi For Respondents : Mr. Pala.Ramasamy, Standing Counsel

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed to challenge the impugned enquiry report of the 2nd respondent, dated 10.09.2015 in RO.MADU.VIG.01/72 and consequential impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings RO.MADU.VIG.02/17 dated 05.02.2016 and also sought for a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to reopen the departmental proceedings by providing the petitioner to adduce additional evidence and witnesses besides granting the petitioner an opportunity.

2/4

2. Today, when the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that pending Writ Petition the Respondents have passed final Order. The statement is recorded.

3. Considering the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, there is no scope for any adjudication in this case. Hence, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to challenge the final order passed by the Respondents. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

Index : Yes / No 29.09.2022 Internet : Yes ksa 3/4

S.SRIMATHY, J ksa 29.09.2022 4/4