Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. Surender, J
R.J.Narayanan – Appellant
Versus
Indian Bank – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's reinstatement sought based on procedural grounds. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. disciplinary charges led to compulsory retirement affirmed by appellate authority. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 3. appeals examined procedural compliance; inconsistencies noted. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. court emphasizes no violation of natural justice or procedural rules. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. writ petition dismissed; penalties upheld. (Para 19) |
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed to quash the order dated 27/10/2007 passed by the first respondent in No.2567/APP:VG:2007 and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits including monetary benefits.
2. The crux of the allegations are that initially, the petitioner joined the respondent Bank on 2/5/1978. While he was working as Branch Manager, the petitioner has committed certain acts of omission and commission. Hence, on 8/12/2004, he was suspended from service and issued with a show cause memo dated 14/11/2005. In response to the show cause memo, the petitioner has submitted his explanation. Not satisfied with the said reply, by communication dated 2/6/2006, the second respondent ha
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
