Chennai: The Madras high court has awarded one week simple imprisonment to two bank officials and also imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 each on them for intentionally and willfully violating the earlier order of the court.
Allowing a petition from S.V. Chennakrishnan, a retired employee of Indian Overseas Bank, Justice M.V. Muralidaran said “K.S.Ganapathy Subramanian, Chief Manager/Disciplinary Authority, IOB, knowing fully well about the ambit of the order of this court in the vacate stay petition, he has intentionally and willfully violated the order of this court. So, this court has no hesitation to protect the Majesty of Justice and as the conduct of the condemnors, prima facie fatal in the way of the administration of justice. Therefore, Ganapathy Subramanian and Subramanian, Chief Manager, Conduct and Disciplinary Action Cell, IOB are hereby liable for punishment of contempt of court and thereby they are imposed with a simple imprisonment for one week and also to pay fine of Rs 2,000 each”.
In his contempt petition, Chennakrishnan submitted that the disciplinary authority of IOB issued two charge sheets against him and others relating to a scam in the recruitment of some employees in the bank.
They challenged the disciplinary proceedings and the high court dismissed them. Thereafter the matter went to the Supreme Court, which dismissed their SLPs, however held that the high court got revived and they can even file a review petition.
As per the high court order, they were granted four weeks time to appear before the disciplinary authority. However, within a week, the disciplinary authority required him to appear before him.
Therefore, he moved the high court, which granted stay. Subsequently, on the petition to vacate stay filed by the authorities, orders were reserved. However, the disciplinary authority went ahead with the matter stating that the interim stay was vacated and dismissed him from service on the date of his superannuation. Hence, he filed the present contempt petition.
Pointing out that in the order passed in the vacate stay petition, this court had clarified that if the letter given by the petitioner has not been taken as an undertaking by the petitioner, then only the interim order of stay would get vacated, the judge said when the letter given by the petitioner was not rejected by the authorities, they cannot proceed with this matter further, as the stay granted by this court was in force.
“I do clarify that unless and until the letter of the petitioner is rejected by the authorities for any reason, the order of stay would be in force. The respondents (bank officials) being public servants should have given utmost respect to the order of the court in order to preserve the majesty of law. The case on hand is without complying with the order of this court, the bank officials in a hasty manner imposed the order of dismissal even without receiving the order copy. This would show that they have simply ignored the order of this court which would directly affect the majesty of justice”, the judge added.
