GHMC Directed to Consider Building Permission or Face Contempt

 Hyderabad: Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court directed the GHMC commissioner and chief city planner to process the building permission application of SJH Constructions Private Limited, within a period of four weeks, failing which the authorities were directed to personally appear before the judge on June 13. The judge was hearing a contempt case filed by the petitioner alleging wilful disobedience of earlier court order. Earlier, the petitioner preferred a writ plea challenging the action of the GHMC in insisting on furnishing remarks from the district collector regarding ownership of the property known as Hameed Mansion in Musheerabad, as a precondition for processing its building permission application. The court earlier in the writ plea directed the GHMC not to insist on such remarks, relying on previous judgments of the Telangana High Court. The judge specifically directed the authorities to process the application of the petitioner without imposing the condition. The petitioner alleged that the authorities, particularly the GHMC commissioner and chief city planner, failed to process its application despite the order attaining finality. In their response to the contempt proceedings, the GHMC officials contended that due to an interim status quo order pending in a writ appeal, they were unable to act. However, senior counsel Avinash Desai, appearing for the petitioner, pointed out that there was no interim order restraining the respondents from processing the application. The judge observed that the contention of the respondent authorities that they would process the application only after vacation of the interim status quo order was unsustainable in law. The judge held that the respondent authorities had shown utter disregard and committed wilful violation of the High Court’s earlier order. Accordingly, the judge directed the respondent authorities to comply with the orders within 4 weeks.

 HC Quashes PNB Officer’s Compulsory Retirement

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court set aside the order of compulsory retirement imposed on a Punjab National Bank (PNB) officer and directed the bank to conduct a fresh inquiry in strict compliance with the prescribed regulations. It was alleged that the officer had sanctioned loans without due diligence and exceeded his authority. The judge heard a writ petition filed by Mattapudi Bhanu Chand, who joined the bank as a clerk in 2014 and was later promoted to the position of manager. While serving at the Gulbarga branch, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The chargesheet, issued on October 1, 2020, alleged that during his tenure as officer-in-charge of the Toopran branch from September 2016 to August 2018, the petitioner sanctioned loans in violation of banking norms and beyond his authorised limits. Loans amounting to `615.75 lakh were allegedly approved, of which `224.19 lakh had become difficult to recover. Based on the findings of a departmental inquiry, the bank imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on November 1, 2021, under the PNB Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977. The petitioner later submitted a representation on November 25, 2021, seeking a de novo inquiry, but the bank treated it as an appeal and summarily rejected it. During the court proceedings, counsel for the petitioner argued that multiple inspections were carried out during the relevant period and that the deficiencies noted were rectified. Despite this, none of the senior officers who had inspected the branch and verified compliance were examined during the inquiry. Moreover, the chargesheet did not include supporting documents or a list of witnesses, thereby denying the petitioner a fair chance to defend himself. The judge observed that the inquiry process failed to adhere to essential procedural safeguards mandated under the bank’s regulations. The failure to provide relevant documents, the absence of witness examination and cross-examination, and the denial of a proper hearing were held to have vitiated the inquiry. The judge also found that the bank’s mischaracterization of the petitioner’s request for a fresh inquiry as an appeal had further prejudiced his case. Citing relevant Supreme Court precedent the judge emphasized the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings.