- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1919 WP No. 206640 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO. 206640 OF 2015 (S-RES) BETWEEN: K.KALLAPPA RAJESHWAR S/O TUKARAM, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: RETD. MANAGER SCALE-III (SBH), R/O. H.NO.19-1-248, BANKERS COLONY, SHIVA NAGAR, SOUTH BIDAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.K. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, GUN FOUNDARY, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD, ZONAL OFFICE, SUPER MARKET, KALABURAGI. 3. THE ASST. GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD, REGIONAL OFFICE, REGION-III, SHIVAJI CHOWK, BIDAR – 585 401. Digitally signed by LUCYGRACE Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1919 WP No. 206640 of 2015 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD, BANGALORE NET WORK, 3RD FLOOR, SHERIFF HOUSE NO.85, RICHAMAND ROAD, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING THE CHARGE SHEET ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS VIDE NO.GM/F-33/893 DATED 29.07.2015 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-E AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE MANAGEMENT TO EXTEND ALL THE TERMINAL BENEFITS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ORDER FOR ANY OTHER RELIEF TO WHICH THE PETITIONER IS FOUND TO BE ENTITLED TO. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) No representation on petitioner’s side on call. 2. On 29.05.2024 following order was passed : “None appears for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents is present. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1919 WP No. 206640 of 2015 The sufficient opportunity is given to the petitioner to engage the learned counsel, but the petitioner has not engaged any learned counsel. If the petitioner is not taken proper steps to engage the learned counsel on the next date of hearing, the suitable orders including the dismissal of the petition will be passed. List this matter on 14.06.2024.” 3. However, the writ petitioner did not choose either to pursue the matter in person by following the procedure prescribed under law or to engage a counsel to conduct his case. Therefore, it is clear that the writ petitioner is not interested to pursue the matter. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (Dr.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54