IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2011 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 6488 of 2011(I) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- V.SUKUMARAN, SURYA GARDENS, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR - 680 020. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. INDIAN BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 66, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 001. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, INDIAN BANK CIRCLE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM - 682 035. 3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER/APPELLATE AUTHORITY (HRM), 66, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 001. 4. N.SELVAM, CHIEF MANAGER (ENQUIRY AUTHORITY) INDIAN BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM- 682 035 NOW AT LEAD BANK DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANNAMALAI. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO.6488/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE BANK DATED 20/06/2009. P2: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 03/07/2009. P3: COPY OF THE ARTICLES OF CHARGES. P4: COPY OF EXPLANATION SUBMITTED DATED 16/12/2009. P5: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER DATED 15/06/2010. P6: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE BANK DATED 09/09/2010. P7: COPY OF THE ABOVE COMMUNICATION DATED 09/09/2010. P8: COPY OF THE APPEAL IS PROVIDED UNDER THE RULES A STATUTORY APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER. P9: COPY OF THE ORDER ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER DATED 14/01/2011. P10: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT ISSUED BY THE BANK. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 6488 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 16th day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on him by the 1st respondent Bank, pursuant to disciplinary proceedings on certain allegations of misconduct. Primarily, the petitioner challenges the validity of the findings in the enquiry. When it was pointed out to the counsel for the petitioner that for re-appreciation of evidence, the petitioner has a better chance before the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court as the case may be, counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise an industrial dispute for the same cause of action. Permission is granted and the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise an industrial dispute on the same issue. If the petitioner files a complaint before the conciliation officer, the conciliation officer shall expedite the conciliation proceedings . Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/