IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 11805 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.SURYANARAYANA IYER,S/O.RAMAKRISHNA IYER,AGED 56 YRS,RESIDING AT MANALOOR THEKKE MADAM PULIYANNOOR,MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686573. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. VIJAYA BANK,(A GOVT.OF INDIA UNDERTAKING),HEAD OFFICE N0.41/2,M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-56001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,DEPARTMENT OF CENTRAL INSPECTION,VIYAJA BANK,NO.41/2,M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER,VIJAYA BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE,KOCHI. 4. B.R.SUBRAMANI IYER,AGED 55 YRS, BRANCH MANAGER,VIJAYA BANK,MUKKOOR BRANCH, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY SC SRI.K.ANAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).11805/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Fourth respondent is an Officer of the Vijaya Bank. Petitioner and the fourth respondent are the members of a Society registered under Act 12 of 1955. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent, who is an Officer bearer in the said Society has indulged in misconduct and misappropriation. Petitioner thought it appropriate to raise a complaint against the conduct of the fourth respondent vis-a-vis the affairs of the Society before the Superior Officer of the fourth respondent in the Bank. It seems that the Bank conducted an enquiry and found that the allegation have nothing to do with the official discharge of duties by the fourth respondent in the Bank. It further seems that according to the Bank, there is no merit in the complaint. Petitioner had approached this Court earlier and the same resulted in Ext.P7 judgment and pursuant to the same, Ext.P8 communication W.P.(C).11805/2009 2 has been issued to the petitioner. The Bank authorities have informed the petitioner that the matter may be treated as closed and if the petitioner is aggrieved, he may pursue the issue elsewhere. I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P8. Going by the averments made in the writ petition, petitioner's cause of action would lie either before the Civil Court or in appropriate cases before the Criminal Court. Superiors of the fourth respondent Bank may not really be able to do anything in this regard. Writ petition is bereft of merit and the same is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs