S.V. CHENNAKRISHNAN Vs. K.S. GANAPATHY SUBRAMANIAN, THE CHIEF MANAGER / DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, C & D.A. CELL, CENTRAL OFFICE, NO. 763, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner an employee of Indian Overseas Bank attained his superannuation on 31.05.2016 has filed the instant contempt petition against the Respondents by stating that the common order dated 25.05.2016 passed in W.M.P. Nos. 16066 and 16067 of 2016 in WP.No. 18368 and 18369 of 2016 respectively has been violated by the respondent. Though two miscellaneous petitions, two Writ petitions are filed, the petitioner confined his relief in respect of W.M.P. No. 16066 of 2016 in W.P.No. 18368 of 2016 only.

(2.) It is the admitted case that the first respondent is the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner who issued two charge sheets dated 03.06.2014 and 30.01.2015. Those charge sheets were issued relating to a big scam, concerning the recruitment of some employees in the Bank. Including the petitioner, some other employees of the Bank also, earlier filed writ petitions sought for stay of the disciplinary proceeding till the finality of the criminal case instituted against the petitioner as both the proceedings consisted of similar charges and allegation. But the writ petitions filed in this regard were dismissed by this Court. When the Writ Appeal Nos. 1559 to 1570 of 2014 were filed, they were also dismissed by a common order dated 31.03.2015. Against the dismissal of the writ appeals, Special Leave petitions were filed before the Honourable Supreme Court in SLP.Nos. 12968 to 12979 of 2016 and 13795 to 13797 of 2016. However by a common order dated 10.05.2016, the Honourable Supreme Court dismissed all the above Special Leave Petitions at the admission stage itself.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that when the Honourable Supreme Court dismisses the Special Leave Petitions at the admission stage, it will not amount to affirming the order of this Court on merits. The petitioner further contended that as per the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (2000) 6 SCC page 359 it has been held that the High Court order gets revived and the person aggrieved can even file a review petition before the High Court under article 226 of Constitution of India. At this juncture, it is useful to set out the order passed in the Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos. 1559 to 1570 of 2014 "that the only course open to the appellants that is the petitioner and other delinquents was to face the criminal prosecution and to appear before the 1st respondent as well after the issuance of notice of personal hearing within 4 weeks from the date of copy of receipt of the order. Admittedly the copy of the order was made ready on 02.05.2006 and the petitioner received the same on 19.05.2016. In the meanwhile the petitioner was required to appear before the 1st respondent on 25.05.2016 in respect of the charge sheet dated 005.2016 and another charge sheet dated 30.01.2015. So, the petitioner filed two 2 writ petitions in W.P.No.18368 and 18367 of 2016, seeking to forbear the 1st respondent from requiring the petitioner to appear before him as disciplinary authority on 25.05.2016. Earlier the petitioner sent a reply dated 205.2016 and informed that he is not legally liable to appear before the 1st respondent 25.05.2016. However, taking into consideration of the entire facts of the case, this court on 25.05.2016 passed the order as follows, "Notice of Motion, returnable in 4 weeks, post after 4 weeks, in the meantime there shall be an order of Interim Stay for a period of 4 weeks".