2009 (7) TMI 1400 - HC - SEBI

Appeal Process to Expedite: Petition Dismissed as Writ Not Maintainable; Petitioner Retains Official Accommodation.

Girreddi Suryanarayana Reddy Versus The Securities and Exchange Board of India, Dr. K.M. Abraham, Dr. K.P. Krishnan, Delhi, Shri Anurag Goel, Secretary, Dr. G. Mohan Gopal, Director, Shri T.V. Mohandas Pai, Director, Smt. Usha Thorat, Dy. Governor, Mumbai. Shri Ashok Chawla, Secretary (EA), and Ms Vini Mahajan, Delhi

The HC discharged the Rule and dismissed the Petition, directing the Petitioner to cooperate with the Appellate Authority to expedite the appeal process. ... - Issues:1. Suspension and disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI).2. Petitioner's challenge to the suspension and subsequent disciplinary actions.3. Petitioner's appeal process and request for an Independent Member to hear the appeal.4. Petitioner's request regarding official accommodation and financial dues.5. Petitioner's repeated filing of Writ Petitions before the High Court.6. Applicability of statutory remedy and alternative legal principles.Analysis:1. The Petitioner, appointed as Division Chief by SEBI, was suspended pending a departmental inquiry. Despite challenging the suspension, subsequent disciplinary actions were taken against him based on an Inquiry Report, leading to the imposition of a major penalty of dismissal from service. The Petitioner filed an appeal under Regulation 88 of SEBI (Employees Service) Regulations, 2001, and sought permission to engage a lawyer for the appeal process.2. The Petitioner, aggrieved by the Respondents' actions, filed a Writ Petition seeking expedited hearing of his appeal by Independent Members and requested to retain official accommodation. The Court directed the Petitioner to cooperate with the authority and allowed him to occupy the premises until the appeal's disposal, with the condition to vacate if the appeal was dismissed.3. The Petitioner failed to argue his case before the Appellate Authority, filed another Writ Petition challenging a communication requiring his presence for the appeal hearing, and requested consideration of his resignation. The Respondents contested the Petition, stating they would deal with the resignation as per the law.4. The Petitioner's contention that the whole-time member of the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal was dismissed by the Court. The Court emphasized the need for the Petitioner to cooperate with the Appellate Authority to expedite the appeal process, as per the Regulations.5. The Court noted the Petitioner's repeated filing of Writ Petitions before the High Court, indicating a lack of bona fide in the present Writ Petition. The Court highlighted that the Petitioner's grounds and averments were previously addressed in earlier Writ Petitions, and the current petition lacked merit.6. Despite discussing the contentions raised, the Court held that the present Writ Petition was not maintainable as the Petitioner should pursue the statutory remedy before the Appellate Authority. The Court emphasized the principle of exhausting alternative remedies before approaching the Court, citing relevant legal precedents.7. The Court discharged the Rule, disposed of the Petition with directions for the Petitioner to cooperate with the Appellate Authority, and urged the Authority to expedite the appeal process. The Court clarified that its observations in the order should not prejudice the Petitioner before the Appellate Authority. No costs were awarded in the matter.