Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Bank Employee: No Relief for Political Vendetta Claims

The case of T.K. David vs. Kuruppampady Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India concerning the dismissal of a bank employee due to disciplinary misconduct. The Court addressed whether the punishment imposed on the petitioner was justified and if prior litigation and multiple review petitions warranted reconsideration.

The ruling underscores the principle that once a special leave petition (SLP) is dismissed by the Supreme Court, further review petitions on the same matter are not maintainable unless there is a clear error apparent on the face of the record. This judgment reinforces procedural finality in employment disputes while ensuring that judicial resources are not misused through repetitive litigation.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, T.K. David, was employed with Kuruppampady Service Co-operative Bank but was dismissed from service following a disciplinary inquiry. The dismissal order was issued on 20 March 2003 due to allegations of financial misconduct.

Key litigation history:

• The petitioner challenged his dismissal before the Cooperative Arbitration Court, which, on 18 August 2010, modified the punishment from dismissal to reduction in rank.
• Both the petitioner and the bank filed appeals (Appeal Nos. 78 of 2010 and 81 of 2010) before the Cooperative Tribunal.
• On 16 August 2011, the Tribunal ruled that the appropriate punishment was compulsory retirement with terminal benefits.
• The petitioner approached the Kerala High Court against the Tribunal’s decision, but his writ petition was dismissed on 31 July 2013.
• A subsequent writ appeal (W.A. No. 1313 of 2013) was also dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 11 March 2015.
• The petitioner then filed an SLP (SLP No. 24231 of 2015) before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 21 August 2015.
• Following this, the petitioner filed a review petition (R.P. No. 1521 of 2016), which was dismissed on 2 March 2016, and later a curative petition (C.P. No. 245 of 2016), which was also dismissed on 12 May 2016.
• Undeterred, the petitioner filed another review petition (R.P. No. 805 of 2018) in the Kerala High Court, which was dismissed on 6 February 2020.

Petitioner’s (T.K. David) Arguments

The petitioner, represented by senior counsel, argued:

• The dismissal was a result of political vendetta and was disproportionate to the charges.
• The Cooperative Arbitration Court had already reduced the penalty, and the Tribunal erred in substituting it with compulsory retirement.
• There was an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying the review.
• The prior SLP dismissal did not preclude his right to review under the judgment in Kunhayammed & Ors. vs. State of Kerala.

Respondents’ (Kuruppampady Service Co-operative Bank) Arguments

The respondents, represented by senior advocates, countered:

• The dismissal was based on a properly conducted domestic inquiry, and the Tribunal’s decision was legally sound.
• The petitioner had exhausted all legal remedies, including the dismissal of his SLP, review petition, and curative petition by the Supreme Court.
• Review petitions are not meant for rearguing the case but only for rectifying errors apparent on the face of the record.
• The High Court had already examined all the legal aspects and found no error warranting a review.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment

The Supreme Court, led by Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, and M.R. Shah, made the following key observations:

• Review Jurisdiction Is Limited: The Court reaffirmed that review petitions are not an avenue for rehearing the case but are restricted to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record.
• Finality of Dismissal of SLP: The Court noted that since the SLP had already been dismissed on 21 August 2015, the issue had attained finality.
• No Error in High Court’s Decision: The Kerala High Court had considered all contentions and found no merit in the review petition.
• Repeated Litigation Is an Abuse of Process: The Court observed that repeated review and curative petitions only burden the judiciary and disrupt judicial discipline.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

• The High Court’s decision to dismiss the review petition was upheld.
• The petitioner’s claims of political vendetta were unsubstantiated.
• The petition was dismissed with costs, cautioning against the misuse of judicial review processes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirms the principle of judicial finality and procedural discipline. It ensures that dismissed employees cannot indefinitely challenge their termination through repeated review petitions. The verdict upholds the sanctity of due process in employment disputes while discouraging frivolous litigation.

Petitioner Name: T.K. David.
Respondent Name: Kuruppampady Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Justice M.R. Shah.
Place Of Incident: Kerala.
Judgment Date: 05-10-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: T.K. David vs Kuruppampady Service Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 05-10-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Subhash Reddy
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category