Judicial review requires exhaustion of alternative remedies; failure to comply with procedures can lead to dismissal of claims for relief.

JUDGMENT

The Petitioner instituted this action by petition dated 29.12.2022 seeking inter alia writs of Certiorari to quash the decision marked P29 dated 10.08.2022 made by the 9th Respondent where the 9th Respondent based on the disciplinary inquiry report of the 10th Respondent has imposed punishment on the Petitioner in accordance with State Mortgage and Investment Bank Rules .

It should be noted that, earlier the Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by case bearing No. CA/Writ/160/22 where one of the reliefs sought by the Petitioner in the petition marked R1 under prayer (c) was:

c. “Grant a mandate in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing, the decision reflected at P-19 dated 06.10.202 to hold a new Disciplinary Inquiry against the Petitioner;

It should be noted that this was refused by the Courts.

The following facts are relevant in this case:

According to the petition, while the Petitioner was in service as an Assistant General Manager (Credit Administration) in the 1st Respondent Bank on 20.11.2017, a charge sheet was served on him pertaining to the involvement of the Petitioner in the misconduct or negligence in approving a personal loan amounting to a sum of Rs. 40,365,000 with another two employees.

Thereafter, an inquiry was held on the above charge sheet from 28.08.2018 and concluded on 18.12.2019. the Petitioner as per the letter dated 09.03.2018, the Petitioner’s annual increments and the bonus were suspended as decided by the Board of Directors until the disciplinary decision is given. The Petitioner further avers that the decision of the inquiry dated 18.12.2019 was not communicated to the Petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority of the Bank.

In any event, the Disciplinary Officer forwarded the Final Report only on 30.10.2020. According to the said report, the charges were not proved against the Petitioner.

In any event, the Acting General Manager has informed the Petitioner by letter dated 23.02.2022, that a fresh inquiry would be conducted based on the twelve charges against the Petitioner and that if the Petitioner failed to attend the said inquiry, such would proceed ex parte. However, the Petitioner states that he informed his inability to attend such an inquiry to the said Acting General Manager. Thereafter, the inquiry was held on 01.04.2022 and it was fixed on 21.04.2022 for which the Petitioner did not participate. the Petitioner states that by letter 21.04.2022, the Petitioner was informed that the tribunal has decided to proceed with the inquiry ex parte.

In the said case bearing No. CA/Writ/160/22, the Petitioner has challenged the decision to hold a fresh inquiry. By order dated 23.11.2023, the Court has held that the Disciplinary Authority has discretion under Rule 16.4 of the State Mortgage and Investment Bank Rules to quash the decision of the inquiry and order a fresh inquiry. The Court further considered that the Petitioner had failed to appear before the said inquiry despite him being informed. Furthermore, the Court formed the opinion that the disciplinary inquiry could be conducted against retired officers and that the conduct of the Petitioner with regarding the non- participation in the inquiry.

In the instant application, the main argument put forward by the Petitioner is that the findings of the 10th Respondent marked as P29 where the Inquiring Officer has come to the conclusion in the report by not considering the availability of the facts and material placed before him. The main objection taken by the Respondent is that under Section 18.1 of the State Mortgage and Investment Bank Rules marked as R2A the Petitioner has an alternative remedy available to make an appeal to the Appellate Authority.

Apart from that, this Court considers that to issue a writ of Certiorari the Petitioner has to satisfy the following grounds as set out in Desmond Perera and Others v. Karunarathne, Commissioner of National Housing and Others , (1994) 3 SLR page 316, at page 329 and 330.

“As poin