THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.18485 of 2025

ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed, seeking to set aside the impugned suspension order dated

02.06.2025 passed by respondent No.4.

2. The case of the petitioner is that while working as Assistant General Manager in respondent No.4 Company, he was placed under suspension by respondent No.4 vide proceedings in Ref: CFHRO/STF/ 602/AGM/SO/2025-26 dated 02.06.2025, on the allegation of certain misconduct, including such acts, prejudicial to the interest of the Organization, which, according to him, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and contrary to the provisions of the Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2014. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Heard Smt. C. Rakhee Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, on behalf of respondent No.1, Sri Manav Gecil Thomas, learned Standing Counsel for Canara Bank, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, and Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Dishit Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel for Can Fin Homes Ltd., on behalf of respondent Nos.4 to 9.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was working as Assistant General Manager, he had lodged a whistleblower complaint before respondent Nos.4 and 6 through e-mail on 26.10.2024, exposing serious malpractices in the recruitment of individuals by respondent No.7, who had not only pressurized the petitioner to select and appoint his acquaintances but also instructed him to reject the candidature of some other individuals, in spite of their eligibility. However, instead of taking any action thereon, to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, he has been transferred from the HR Department in Bangalore to Branch Office in Nampally, Hyderabad vide e-mail dated 28.10.2024. Subsequently, after he joined duty as such, on 02.06.2025, he received the present impugned suspension order, openly citing the reason of his suspension as the whistleblowing complaint made by him. It is contended that the petitioner had made the said whistleblowing complaint in the public interest, duly discharging his duties honestly and conscientiously. However, by mala fide exercise of power, the petitioner has been victimized by placing him under suspension, which is wholly illegal, arbitrary, unilateral and unconstitutional. Therefore, learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, on filing of a preliminary counter affidavit, submits that respondent No.4 is only an associate Company of respondent No.3 Bank, wherein, respondent No.3 holds only 29.99% of the total shares of respondent No.4 Company, and both the institutions are separate legal entities governed by their respective Boards. Hence, respondent No.3 has no role to play in the instant matter.

6. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos.4 to 9, also filed a preliminary counter affidavit, vehemently opposing the maintainability of the present writ petition. It is submitted that respondent No.4-Can Fin Homes Ltd., is a Housing Finance Company (NBFC) incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is sponsored by Canara Bank and operates as a public listed company under the Companies Act, 1956, and functions as a separate legal entity with its own Board, Management and operational anatomy. Although the Company is bound to abide and follow the guidelines provided by the Reserve Bank of India, such guidelines are imposed for smooth conduct of the affairs of the Company and does not act as a participatory dominance or control over its affairs. It is further submitted that respondent No.4 Company is engaged solely in commercial activities relating to housing finance, but it does not perform any sovereign, statutory or public duty. As such, the Company does not fall w