IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT " DATED THIS THE 14*" DAY OF NOVEMBER'-2003» % T LV BEFORE THE HON'3LE MR. 3USTICEvAg.N.\v/'§EN:UGOPAL.2?e. Gowufi BETWEEN : sm'.:<.:~e2oH1N1, % _ w/0 SRI.M.S.RA_NGARA3U;" AGED 40 ¥EAR.S;F; g R/O No.4, \_lAS»UK1;._N'ILAYA,* 111 caoss, 3';H(§Vg!_DESH\(ii'1'.'jP»I 2ATAwAD*zV,%.TA%'*';% TUMKUR. ; ...PETITiONER ;~:A$Ar:, % (BY sR:.K;H;&;§RAs:M7M:1A~, ADV.) AN.Q.;§.. " % ms Ef)'EPE3TY GEi'¥'E'|«§A§. MANAGER, % 'SYNfiICATE'*B_ANK, »:s:o;a9;%..5*"k%'TMAxN, 3&9 BLOCK, * .JAYANAf5AFE, BANQKLQRE -- 560 011. sRi.e<%§s.suRYAPRAr<»AsH. SENIOR MANAGER AND V V' -EBEQUIRY OFFICER, SYNDICATE BANK, ; GENERAL MANAGER'S omce uoupz. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY M/SSUNDARASWAMY RAMDAS 8: ANAND, ADVS)
3. It is not in dispute that,the setitio’ne0rA,.i..§§e.=.§
issued with a charge sheet dated 18.8.2005—-»a.i’i:eQing «acta «.
of misconduct by her and the same was} §u,b}4e’ctedwV’e:j..’
enquiry. In the enquiry, the .p__etition_er had.»’é$ajt1’njAitte;d’.Va
ietter dated 15.10.2005, requejtmg for i,it;ermits.sion to
engage an advocate yiftxer. repreaentative,
considering which, the__ “€:o.tT§t§f’iv!i–i1ication dated
31.10.2005
4;’ “”” flied statement of
objectio”ns”t_o A perusa! of the same
wouid shoVtv*4..thvat_.Vjaftecthe impugned endorsement was
the.__petitio’ne–r«was notified of the further hearing
ydateeeenquiry. It appears from the ‘statement of
obje’ction.eithj_at,vVthe discipiirtary enquiry was concluded on
‘V,_’18.4.’20(:5£§ and the Enquiryofficer submitted his enquiry
it “{frep0″r1’, on 2.6.2006, a copy of which was sent to the
‘ pietitiioner by the discipiinary authority on 10.6.2006, which
returned un-served. The patftioner appears to have
/
sent a communication dated 31.7.2006, seeking time to
make her submissions and in the meanwhile
charge sheet dated 3.8.2006 was issueTitoschema’s
Considering the fact that the petition.er_did hot” it” 2
repiy, by an order dated 2.9.2008,v”the;’_pe-tltioner::hasV§§iee’i:.j
dismissed from service of the’li3$_»_a1’*n,i<.
Considering the facts 3_fi&'».:¢V'e_fltS..'i10tI§GqVi5 supra,
which are not in dispiitexthe.Lp%ta§er'jvvin"the writ petition
does not survive for consi:'£eraticn';»c'_ it ciear that, it
is open to at-iatienge the order passed
against by the_.respo'n—ciei:t's in accordance with law and
ieavin.g.oopen"'a_ii the contentions of both sides, this writ
"vpetitio'n ts: disposetivvoffas having become infructuous. No
costs.
Sd/-
Tudge
t,…g,..