SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 23671

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN
M.Marimurugan – Appellant
Versus
The Chairman and Managing Di – Respondent



BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.09.2020 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN W.P(MD)No.10741 of 2020 and WMP(MD)No.9459 of 2020 M.Marimurugan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Chairman & Managing Director, Punjab National Bank, Head Office, 7, Bhikhaji Cama Place, New Delhi.

2.The General Manager, Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office, 46-49, Royapettah High Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 14.

3.The Deputy General Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, 179, Sarojini Street, Ram Nagar, Coimbatore – 641 009.

4.The Chairman, National Commission for Schedule Castes, Floor – 2, Block No.5, Sasthiri Bhavan, Chennai – 600 006.

5.The Director General of Police, Social Justice & Human Rights Wing, Police Head Quarters, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore Chennai – 600 004.

6.The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Pudukkottai

7.The Inspector of Police, Gandarvakottai Police Station, Gandarvakottai, Pudukkottai District.

8.Mr.T.K.Balamurugan, Deputy Zonal Manager /

Deputy General Manager, Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office, 46-49, Royapettah High Road, Chennai – 14. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 4th respondent to initiate appropriate action against the 8th respondent invoking the Article 338 of Constitution of India, based on the petitioner's representation, dated 10.11.2017.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Radhakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.S.Chandrasekar (R6 & R7) Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This present Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 4th respondent to initiate appropriate action against the 8th respondent by invoking the Article 338 of Constitution of India, based on the petitioner's representation, dated 10.11.2017.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was working as a Manager (Agricultural) in Punjab National Bank, Palayamkottai. When at the time the petitioner was working in the Branch of Punjab National Bank, Punalkulam, he approached to meet the Circle Head Mrs. Latha, with his wife, who did not permit them to meet. So many grievances given by the petitioner was not redressed and in the meantime, again within four months, the petitioner had been transferred to Bikshandarkoil, Trichy and again on 04.11.2013, to Circle Office, Trichy. When at the time the petitioner was working in Trichy Circle Office, he has been deputed to Branch Offices of Tirunelveli, Periyasamiyapuram and Ambasamudram, for the purpose of processing the pending loan papers.

3. Though the work of the petitioner was appreciated by the higher officers, the Executive Director and Chairman and Managing Director, the Circle Head Mrs. Latha and her successor Mr.Dhamodharan, DGM, Circle Head did not encourage and also not permitted to meet them personally. When at the time of hearing the grievance, Mr.Damodaran, DGM, Circle Head, Trichy, uttered filthy language and asked him 'to resign the job and also further uttered either you resign or your wife to resign and what for you need of child'.

4. In the said circumstances, the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent and forwarded the copies of the same to the higher officers on 29.08.2014. In the meantime, the Circle Office, Trichy was closed and merged with Coimbatore Circle Office, in which, one Mr.K.G.Balamugundan, the 8th respondent, was working as Circle Head and he is the dishonest person. So, the petitioner avoided to meet him personally, whenever at the time who is visiting the bank in which the petitioner was working, he used to abuse the petitioner by mentioning the caste name in front of the customers and also awarded low performance marks.

5. So, the petitioner was compelled to made a complaint against him and accordingly on 21.11.2017, he made a complaint against the 8th respondent and sent the same to respondents 1 to 4. In the meanwhile, the Parliamentary Committee for Scheduled Caste, forw

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top