The main legal point established in the judgment is the discussion of the maintainability of a writ petition against a private limited banking company.

D. MURUGESAN, J.

1. These writ appeals are directed against the common order dated 29.01.2009 dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellant herein.

2. The appellant, while he was working as Branch Manager of the Bharat Overseas Bank Limited at Chandigarh, was selected vide letter dated 10.12.1993 for the post of Manager Administration and Accounts at the Bangkok branch. He was relieved and transferred to Bangkok branch vide letter dated 29.01.1994. After a spell of three years service, he was relieved from Bangkok and transferred to Fort Branch, Mumbai, vide letter dated 09.04.1997. He was advised to attend a Managers' Conference at Chennai on 26th and 27th April, 1997. He attended the said conference and thereafter, he submitted his resignation vide his letter dated 2nd May, 1997. However, his request for resignation was not accepted by the first respondent-bank and the same was rejected vide letter dated 08.05.1997. On the ground that he has submitted his resignation, he did not report duty from 02.05.1997, viz., the date on which he submitted his resignation.

3. Therefore, the respondent bank in letter dated 15.05.1997 sent a show cause notice calling for explanation from the appellant on the ground that by his unauthorised absence, he violated Rule 16 of the Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd. Officers Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1990. Not satisfied with the explanation offered by the appellant, the first respondent-bank levelled three charges against the appellant in their communication dated 14.06.1997. The appellant did not participate in the enquiry proceedings and ultimately, by order dated 02.01.1998, imposed the punishment of penalty of reduction in pay scale from scale III to scale II and fixing the basic pay at Rs.8280/- with immediate effect. It was against both the orders refusing to accept the resignation as well as the imposition of punishment, the appellant filed two writ petitions, which were dismissed by the common order dated 29.01.2009 on the ground that they are not maintainable.

4. We have heard Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.V.Karthick, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

5. According to Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Judge ought not to have dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that they are not maintainable. The learned counsel would rely upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2010 (2) LLN 260 (Indian Overseas Bank, rep. By General Manager, Personnel, Administration Department v. K.C.Kumar. According to the learned counsel, Bharat Overseas Bank Limited was amalgamated with Indian Overseas Bank and the same was notified on 12.03.2007. In terms of clause 14 of Bharat Overseas Bank (Transfer of undertaking to Indian Overseas Bank) Scheme, 2007, all proceedings of whatsoever nature by or against the Transferor Banking Company pending before the effective date shall be continued and be enforced against the Transferee Bank as effectively as if the same had been filed by or pending against the Transferree Bank. In view of the said clause, the proceedings which were pending on the date when the amalgamation was notified, shall inure to the benefit of the appellant in regard to the pending writ petitions as well. The learned counsel would also submit that since the writ petitions were dismissed on the ground of maintainability, the challenge to both the orders was not considered on merits. The learned counsel, therefore, advanced his arguments on the merits as well.

6. On the other hand, Mr.V.Karthick, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant was not rendered on a detailed discussion of the issue as to whether the writ petition is maintainable against a private limited banking company registered under the Companies Act. Further, the said judgment had not taken note of the judgments of the A