The iudoment of the A Court in Federal Bank Limited v. Saoar Thomas. dated

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the Respondents 3 and 4 herein in terminating the services of the Petitioner herein with immediate effect by email letter dated 13.03.2023, issued by the 4th Respondent herein, said to be issued in accordance with Clause -19 of Appointment letter i.e. Ref.No.HRl/38894, dated 11.12.2012, on the alleged ground of damaging the reputation of the Bank, threatening to initiate civil and criminal proceedings against the Petitioner, without notice and without following principles of natural justice and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 2'1 of Constitution of lndia and Consequently direct the Respondents 3 and 4 herein to reinstate the services of the Petitioner herein as Deputy Manager in Tractor and Farm Equipment Division at Karimnagar or n any branch, with continuity of service and with all consequential and attendant benefits attached to the said post, forthwith lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Suspend the operation of the Termination proceedings vide email letter dated 13.03.2023 of the 4th Respondent herein, issued in accordance with Clause -19 of Appointment letter i.e Ref . No. HR/38894, dated 11.12.2012 by allowing the Petitioner to continue rn service, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. D. LINGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR (Dy. solrctToR GENERAL OF tNDtA) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3&4: SRI G.V.S GANESH SC FOR KMBL Tlie Court made the l'ollowing: ORDER HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.19636 OF 2023 OLDER: Heard Sri D.Linga Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.l & 2 and Sri G.V.S.Ganesh, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 & 4.

2. The Detitioner aDproached the Court seekinq prayer as under: ".......to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the Respondents 3 and 4 herein in terminating the services of the Petitioner herein with immediate effect by email letter dated 13.03.2023, issued by the 4th Respondent herein, said to be issued in accordance with Clause -19 of Appointment letter i.e. Ref.No.HR/38894, dated 11.12.2012, on the alleged ground of damaging the reputation oF the Bank, threatening to initiate civil and criminal proceedings against the Petitioner, without notice and without following principles of natural justice and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and Consequently 2 direct tne Respondents 3 and 4 herein to reinstate the services of the Petitioner herein as Deputy Manager in Tractor and Farm Equipment Division at Karimnagar or in an)' branch, with continuity of service and with all consequential and attendant benefits attached to the said post, forthwith and to pass...."

3. It is spt:cific case of the petitioner that the Respondent Nos. 3 and ,1 herein are terminating the serl'ices of the Petitioner herr:in with immediate effect by email letter, dated t3.O3.2023, i:;sued by the 4th Respondent hereirr, said to be issued in accordance with Clause - 19 of Appointment letter i.e. Ref.No.HR/38894, dated 17.L2.2072, on the alleged ground of damaging the reputation of the Bank, and are threatening tc, initiate civil and criminal proceedings against the Petitioner, without notice and without follow rrg principles of natural justice. Aggrieved by the said act.ion of the respondents, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner challenged the order impugned, dated

13.03.2023 of the 4th respondent mainly on the ground that the services of the petitioper had been terminated 3 with immediate effect vide email letter, dated 13.O3.2023 issued by the 4th respondent, without issuing prior notice to the petitioner in clear violation of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further contends that though the respondent Bank is a private Bank still in view of the fact that the respondent Bank is associated with public functions, the plea of the respondents that the Writ Petition is not maintainable is not tenable.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit and in particular at para No.15, contended that there is a clear admission of the respondent Bank that no prior notice was issued to the petitioner prior to issuing the impugned email letter, dated 13.03.2023.

6. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank contends that the Writ Petition 4 has to be dismissed since no writ Iies against a Private Bank. PERUSED T HE RECORD:- 7, The counter affidavi t has been filed on behalf of the resDondent Nos.3 & 4 and in oarticular oara No. 15 is extracted e reunder:- the Res rminated b The Resoondent Bank was under no 15. oblioation to send out a orior notice to the oetitioner as it is clearlv enumerated in the ent that the arra noement could be B nk tan time without the exoress nee ot servino anv notice on the oetitioner if in the ooinion of the Mana oement anv act of dishonestv or such was committe dbv the emolovee. The petitioner acted in,l dishonest manner when he grossly violated the terms of employnrent expressly signed by the petitic)ner at the time oF his scheduled appointment with the Respondent Bank and indulged in transactions which were prejudicial to the interests of the Bank. Indulging in activities, that pose high risks and potentia reputational damage to the Respondent bank affirm the malicious intentiors and stands as a firm reason behind the termination of services of the petitioner. 5 8 The iudoment of the A Court in Federal Bank Limited Vs. Saoar Thomas. dated 26.09.2OO3 reoorted n 2003 10 7 n tn ar r extracted ereu n der: - "33. For the discussion held above, in our view, a private company carrying on banking business as a scheduled bank, cannot be termed as an institution or company carrying on any statutory or public duty. A private body or a person may be amenable to writ jurisdiction only where it may become necessary to compel such body or association to enforce any statutory obligations or such obligations of public nature casting positive obligation upon it. We don't find such conditions are fulfilled in respect of a private company carrying on a commercial activity of banking. Merely regulatory provisions to ensure such activity carried on by private bodies work within a discipline, do not confer any such status upon the company nor puts any such obligation upon it which may be enforced through issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. Present is a case of disciplinary action being taken against its employee by the appellant Bank. Respondent's service with the bank stands terminated. The action of the Bank was challenged by the respondent by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondent is not trying to enforce any statutory duty on the part of the Bank. That being the position, the appeal deserves to be allowed." 9 Learned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Writ Petition could be disposed of directing the respondent-Bank to issue a relieving order to the petitioner since the same is 6 essential requirement for the petitioner to obtain employment in future. O. Lear ed tan a the res on dent Nos. 3 &4 do ute the said submissi on made bv the learned co unsel ADDea rt no on b alf t diso eha of es no f the eti ner.

11. Takino into con s!deration: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3&4. c) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 & 4 in particular para No.15 (referred to and extracted above) d) The judgment of the Apex Court in Federat Bank Limited Vs. Sagar Thomasin particutar para No.33 ( referred to and extracted above) w 7 Thas Court opines that the petitioner is not entiued for the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present Writ petition in view of the observations of the Apex Court in Federat Bank Lamited Vs. Sagar Thomas, dated 26.09.2003 reported in (2OO3) 1O SCC 733 (referred to and extracted above). The Writ Petition is however disposed of directing the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for issuance of the relieving order within a period of one (O1) week from the date of receipt of copy of the order. L2. Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.V.S.P SAD DEPUTY RE STRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Secretary, Union of lndia, Flnance Department, No.15, Safdarjung Road, New Delhi,

2. The Secretary, Reserve Bank of lndia, P.O. Box No.901, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai - 400001, Maharashtra State.

3. The Chairman, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Corplrate Office.27, BKC, C- 27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 , Maharashka State,.

4. The Senior Vice President - Human Resources, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Kotak lnfiniti Building, No.21, lnfinity Park, Off Western Express Highway, General A.K. Vaidya Marg, Malad (E), Mumbai - 400097' Maharashtra State. I i E 6 7 KKS PSK One CC to SRt. D. LINGA RAO Advocate tOpUCl One CC to SRt G V.S GANESH SC FOR KMBL [OpUCl One CC to SRt GAD| PRAVEEN KUMAR (Dy SOL|C|TC)R GENERAL OF rND|A) [oPUC] Two CD Copies ^a/ry/' HIGH COURT DATED:1710312025 CC TODAY I t ORDER WP.No.19636 of 2023 q ) )),'() z J$ 1 HE STA, ..t 'c 2 APn z[fi * \* D1:sp.r.*;cH a, ,t /\ 'i i, r:) / DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS o\