By L. Ravichander

Copyright deccanchronicle

Hyderabad: Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court voiced zero tolerance for misuse of official power by employees in the banking sector, which he reasoned relies heavily on discipline and trust. The judge refused to interfere with the punishment of dismissal of a senior manager of the Central Bank of India, for serious misconduct, illegal gratification demands, and unbecoming behaviour. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by S. Raghu Prasad. A complaint was lodged by the proprietor of M/s Dolphin Chemicals alleging that the petitioner demanded illegal favours and gratification under the pretext of managing credit portfolios. The disciplinary inquiry further revealed that petitioner continued to harass the complainant even after being transferred to another branch. Additional charges highlighted his habit of frequently quarrelling with staff, making baseless complaints against executives, and tarnishing the reputation of the bank. The disciplinary authority imposed dismissal as a consolidated penalty, reinforced by the appellate and review authorities after thorough scrutiny of the inquiry records. The petitioner argued that the inquiry process was vitiated due to procedural irregularities, including non-production of documents and bias by the inquiry authority. He contended that his past performance was satisfactory and that the charges were baseless. However, the judge observed the inquiry was conducted fairly and in accordance with the Central Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations and dismissed the writ plea.Harsh political comments part free speech: HCJustice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court quashed three criminal complaints against a businessman accused of allegedly posting defamatory and provocative content on social media targeting the Congress and the Telangana Chief Minister. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Nalla Balu alias Durgam Shashidhar Goud, challenging the registration of FIRs by the Telangana Cyber Security Bureau at Ramagundam and Karimnagar police stations. The petitioner faced charges including alleged offences of defamation, provocation to riot, public mischief, and circulation of obscene material. The controversy arose from a series of social media posts where the petitioner described Congress as a “scourge of the state,” accusing the ruling party of operating on a “20% commission,” and allegedly posted vulgar remarks about the Chief Minister. The prosecution argued that these posts aimed to defame the government, provoke unrest, and spread disaffection. However, the judge held that harsh political criticism, including metaphorical expressions and allegations of corruption, falls within the ambit of free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, provided there is no imminent threat to public order or incitement to violence. The judge specifically observed that the FIRs were initiated based on third-party complaints without the required standing of the aggrieved person, and in the absence of any prima facie material establishing key elements such as mens rea or actual harm. The judge also emphasised that defamation cases must proceed only by way of a private complaint by the aggrieved party and not through arbitrary FIR registrations.Count service in temporary post too, rules HCJustice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court set aside the action of the state authorities in not counting past temporary service of a retired employee for pensionary benefits and directed that his service from the date of initial appointment be considered for computation of qualifying service. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by K. Shakirappa, who worked as a part-time village librarian from March 1981 and was regularised only in March 2002. He retired in June 2014, but the authorities failed to reckon his temporary service from 1981 to 2002 for pension, gratuity, and other benefits. The petitioner contended that the issue was already covered by earlier decisions of the High Court and relied on the Supreme Court’s rulings, which held that temporary and work-charged service must be counted for pensionary purposes. Referring to the principle that a pension is not a bounty but a property right under the Constitution, the judge held that denying the same benefit to the petitioner, when similarly placed employees had been extended the relief, amounted to discrimination and was violative of the Constitution. Allowing the writ plea, the judge directed the respondents to count the petitioner’s past service from the date of his initial appointment in 1981 till his regularisation in 2002 for sanction of pension, gratuity, and all consequential benefits.Anticipatory bail in suicide abetment caseJustice K. Sujana of the Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail to a private employee accused of abetment to suicide of a 20-year-old BTech student. The judge was hearing a criminal petition filed Bicha Banoth. …