THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.4328 of 2000 Dated: 30.07.2010 Between: Ahmed Mion. .. Petitioner. And The General Manager, The K.D. Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Karimnagar. .. Respondents. ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to direct the respondent to consider the petitioner’s case on par with others similarly situated with respect to payment of pay scales, and service benefits, including monetary benefits. At the time of filing the writ petition the petitioner, aged 57 years, was working as a Supervisor in the respondent Bank. He was earlier awarded the punishment of reduction in his scale of pay on the ground that the charges leveled against him were proved. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Committee of person’s in-charge on 20.03.1985, which was also rejected. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted another application to lift the punishment. On the ground that no orders were passed in his case, while the case of others was considered sympathetically, the present writ petition is filed. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it is stated that, after an enquiry was conducted into the charges of misappropriation of funds and tampering with bank records, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges were established and, thereafter, by order dated 11.01.1985, the punishment of reduction of the petitioner’s pay in the minimum time scale of pay was imposed; the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Board, which was also dismissed by memo dated 13.11.1985; and consequently, the petitioner was placed in the minimum time scale of pay from 1985 onwards. The respondent would submit that the allegation that he had considered the case of others on humanitarian grounds was not correct, and that he had not considered any case of persons similarly situated to that the petitioner on humanitarian grounds. It is further stated that the representation submitted by the petitioner could not be considered as there was no power of review of the order passed earlier. It is evident from the counter affidavit that the petitioner retired from service in October, 2000, and his claim was not entertained on the ground of lack of power of review. Further, the charges leveled against the petitioner are of misappropriation of funds of the Bank and tampering with the records. No indulgence whatsoever can be shown in the petitioner’s favour. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 30.07.2010 v v