M P KRISHNAPPA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a practising Advocate having served as Director of the Union Bank of India for 5 years and having technical knowledge of bank and banking transactions. It is stated that while he was sitting in court Hall No. 15, matter was argued in W. P. No. 19064 of 2000 filed by b. Vijayabhaskar Shetty, 4th respondent herein against State Bank of india, 2nd respondent herein. The petitioner went through the writ petition and found that malpractice and fraud was committed by the Bank authorities while exercising power in State Bank of India. It is also stated that later it has come to his notice that the 4th respondent herein who was the petitioner in W. P. No. 19064 of 2000 entered into a compromise with State Bank of India and withdrew the writ. Since the Bank has hushed up the matter keeping away the 4th respondent, the present public interest litigation was filed on 17-8-2000 seeking for a direction that an enquiry be ordered through CBI into the Suspense Account and branch Clearing General Account of State Bank of India Service Branch with an interim prayer to seize the records.

(2.) NOTICE was issued on 21-8-2000.

(3.) A detailed counter giving para-wise reply is filed by the 2nd respondent-State Bank of India denying the allegations made in the petition as false and stating the public interest litigation petition to be misconceived and not maintainable. It is submitted that nothing has been alleged that the statutory provisions have not been implemented or there is any violation or breach of the provisions. It is also submitted that 4th respondent-B. Vijayabhaskar Shetty filed three writ petitions viz. , W. P. No. 10344 of 1996 seeking for a direction to the Bank to implement the transfer policy framed by the Bank. The same was dismissed on 17-2-2000 holding that transfer is an incidence of service. W. P. No. 22276 of 1998 was filed praying that the order dated 8-10-1997 transferring him to Kamalapura Branch as Assistant Manager (Cash) be quashed together with orders dated 8-1-1998 and 5-3-1998 passed by the initial authority and Appellate Authonty in relation to his transfer orders. The same was disposed of on 27-8-1998 directing the grievance committee formed by the Bank to deal with the grievance raised by the 4th respondent. Thereafter, he filed W. P. No. 19064 of 2000 questioning the constitution of grievance committee and for quashing the transfer order dated 8-10-1997. However, he was retained. It is also stated that he remained absent from 19-6-1997 till 25-8-2000. Disobedience of the transfer order is the subject-matter of the pending disciplinary proceedings. So far as reply to the present writ petition is concerned, the allegations are denied. It is stated that no complaint was received. It is also stated that the Service Branch does not directly deal with the customers and nothing has been furnished regarding general sweeping accusations that the loans are written off. The averments are imaginary, false and unsustainable and the petitioner has no right and cannot be heard in the garb of transfer policy, which is not concerned to him and as he is total stranger to the Bank. The other allegations also are not correct. The petitioner cannot enquire into the facts pertaining to the 4th respondent in the writ and the allegation is also wrong that no steps are being taken to reconcile the old outstanding entries. It is also stated that all entries are reconciled and examined for the year ending 31-3-2000 and unreconciled entries are only to the value of Rs. 34,04,499. 58 which are very old and steps are being taken to reconcile and Reserve Bank of india is the body to supervise the entire administration. The Bank holds security created by the borrower and for recovery has filed application o. A. No. 95 of 2000 before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore and has also lodged a complaint to CBI. It is also stated that the CBI has closed the case after verifying the allegations. It is submitted that the petitioner has therefore no legal right nor there is any violation which can be invoked by the petitioner in this public interest litigation petition. Therefore, the public interest litigation petition may be dismissed with exemplary costs.