IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No : 26308 of 2007 Between: Yelchuri Madhana Sudhakara Krishna, S/o Phanibhushana Chary, Vijaya Bank, Chirala Branch, Chirala, R/o H.No.25-100, Bosenagar, Naidupeta, Chirala, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman, Vijaya Bank, M.G.Road, Bangalore. 2 The Regional Manager, Vijaya Bank, Marutinagar, Masjid Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 The Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, Chirala Branch, Chirala, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ , order or direction, more particularly a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not continuing the petitioner as Jewel Appraiser in the 3rd respondent branch without passing any orders, without issuing any notice and without conducting any enquiry as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violation of principles of natural justice, null and void and contrary to the agreement entered into by the respondents with the petitioner on 25-5-2005 and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Jewel Appraiser in the 3rd respondent branch and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.SURENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.B.ADINARAYANA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not continuing the petitioner as Jewel Appraiser in the 3rd respondent branch without issuing any notice or order and without conducting any enquiry, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the agreement entered into by the respondents with the petitioner on 25.05.2005 and consequently sought for a direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner as Jewel Appraiser in the 3rd respondent branch. The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to Goldsmith community and was appointed as Jewel Appraiser on 25.05.2005 by the 3rd respondent with the permission of other respondents and an agreement was entered into between him and the respondents on the same day. It is stated that despite the fact that the petitioner is discharging his duties sincerely to the utmost satisfaction of the bank officials, the 3rd respondent directed him orally not to attend the duties from 25.07.2007 as a complaint was received against him. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representations to the 3rd respondent on 06.08.2007, 20.10.2007 and 19.11.2007 seeking to continue him as a Jewel Appraiser and to furnish the alleged copy of the complaint. Since the respondents did not respond to the said representations, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Para-6 of the counter-affidavit reads as under: “In reply to paragraphs 5 and 6, it is submitted that this respondent did not terminate the services of the petitioner. It is submitted that on 19.07.2007 a complaint dated 15.07.2007 from the customer of Chirala Branch was received by the 2nd respondent about involvement of the petitoner in various illegal activities, which is against the interests of the bank. The same was forwarded to this respondent by the 2nd respondent on 24.07.2007. On the very same day this respondent informed the petitioner about the complaint which was received and he was asked for explanation. Without submitting any reply, the petitioner from 25.07.2007 onwards deliberately not attending the duties. “Jewel appraising is a highly tenchnical job and the jewel apraiser should be beyond suspicion. The petitioner is an accused in a criminal case and shadow of suspicion has eclipsed him. On the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner by third parties, the petitioner stopped attending the bank and failed to render services. It is further submitted that the entrusting of work to the petitioner is absolute discreitilon of the respondent bank.” Heard both sides. Having regard to the contentions made on eitherside, without going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of at the admission stage in the following manner: If the representations submitted by the petitioner are in existence, the 3rd respondent may consider the same and pass appropriate orders or otherwise the petitioner shall submit fresh representation to the 3rd respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such representation being filed, the 3rd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 24-12-2008 Note: C.C. in three days. (Bo) Gsn.