##PAGE1##

2026:APHC:19208

APHC010527532025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3575]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1294 OF 2025

Between:

1. V RADHA KRISHNA MURTHY, S/O LATE V.B.

LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, FORMERLY

BRANCH MANAGER, THE VYSYA BANK LTD., MADANAPALLE,

CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

...APPELLANT

AND

1. T HE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CHAIRMAN, Kotak Mahindra Bank

Limited, 27 BKC, C-27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra East,

Mumbai - Maharashtra.

...RESPONDENT

CORAM:- THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE LISA GILL

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

DATE:- 22^nd April, 2026.

******

PRESENT: Mr.G.N.V.Pulla Rao, Advocate for Appellant

Mr.G.V.S.Ganesh, Advocate for Respondent.

2

2026:APHC:19208

The Court made the following Judgment : (Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ninala Jayasurya)

Aggrieved by order of dismissal of Writ Petition No.19697 of 2014, the

present Writ Appeal has been preferred.

2. Appellant / writ petitioner, an employee of The Vysya Bank Ltd., was

dismissed from service vide Order No.HRD/ER/C-514/93-94, dated

23.08.1993. He preferred an appeal against said order of dismissal. The

Executive Director (CRR) and Appellate Authority of The Vysya Bank Ltd.,

vide order in HRD:ER:C:1231:99-2000, Dated 29.10.1999, in exercise of

powers vested in him modified the order of dismissal to compulsory retirement

from service of the said Bank.

3. Nearly after about 4 years, appellant submitted representation dated

13.09.2013 to the Head, Employees Relations, ING Vysya Bank Ltd.,

Hyderabad, with a request to the said Bank to pay back wages from the date

of his initial suspension and pension on the premise that he was acquitted in

the criminal case. In reply to said representation, M/s. ING Vysya Bank

Limited, vide communication dated 24.09.2013 informed the appellant that he

is not eligible for pension under applicable Pension Regulations, since

punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed with effect from

23.08.1993, which is prior to the cut-off date 01.11.1993.

4. Under the said circumstances, the appellant / writ petitioner filed

W.P.No.19697 of 2014 seeking setting aside of order dated 23.08.1993 and

order dated 29.10.1999 of the appellate authority referred to above by

impleading Managing Director and CEO of ING Vysya Bank Limited (Formerly

3

The Vysya Bank Ltd.,) as party respondent. Subsequently, cause title in the

Writ Petition was amended in respect of the respondents vide Order dated

06.09.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 and Managing Director and Chairman, Kotak

Mahindra Bank Limited was made as party respondent.

5. M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited filed a detailed counter-affidavit

raising preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of Writ Petition on

the premise that respondent Bank is a private sector bank and not amenable

to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. It also relied on

the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Federal Bank Ltd., Vs. Sagar

Thomas, (2003) 10 SCC 733 to buttress the said contention. That apart, plea with regard to the

scope of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India was also

raised.

6. Learned Single Judge after considering the submissions made on both

sides, though not specifically dealing with the contention about maintainability

of Writ Petition against a private bank, dismissed the Writ Petition opining that

the petitioner failed to make out a case for judicial review of punishment

imposed by the disciplinary authority. Reliance was placed on the decision of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic

Sciences and Another Vs Bikartan, 2026:APHC:19208

7. Learned counsel for appellant / writ petitioner made submissions to

impress upon this Court that the Order of learned Single Judge is erroneous,

contrary to law and not sustainable. It is his contention that learned Single

2 2023 11 SCR 731

4

2026:APHC:19208

Judge erred in not appreciating the contention that in view of order of acquittal

of Appellant / Writ Petitioner dated 05.07.