In this writ petition, the petitioner, a bank clerk dismissed for misappropriation charges, challenged an Industrial Tribunal award confirming his dismissal. The High Court found no grounds for interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.13841 OF 2018 (L-TER)
BETWEEN:
SRI. H.SOMASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, SON OF LATE SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA, "VAISHNAVI NILAYA", 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, PRASHANTHANAGARA, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
…PETITIONER (BY SMT. MANJULA KULKARNI., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V.S.NAIK., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
THE CHAIRMAN, CHITRADURGA GRAMEENA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, P.B.NO.70, V.P.EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
(BY SRI. T.SHIVAGURU., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T.P.MUTHANNA., ADVOCATE)
…RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2023:KHC:42887 WP No. 13841 of 2018
ORDER
Smt.Manjula Kulkarni., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.V.S.Naik., for the petitioner has appeared through video conferencing.
Sri.T.Shivaguru., learned counsel on behalf of
Sri.T.P.Muthanna., for the respondent has appeared in person.
2. The brief facts are these:
The petitioner was appointed as Clerk cum Cashier during
the year 1984 by the Chitradurga Grameena Bank. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance issued a Notification dated:12.09.2005 amalgamating all the Rural Banks sponsored by Canara Bank operating in Karnataka into a single Rural Bank called 'Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank' with head office at Bellary. The petitioner initially worked in the Head office for two days and thereafter, he was posted to Byadarahalli Branch. The respondent Bank placed the petitioner under suspension pending inquiry from 02.11.1998.
The respondent issued Charge sheet on 08.12.1998, alleging that the petitioner has received cash of Rs.15,000/(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) on 25.06.1998 and
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) on 03.07.1998 and failed to remit the same to loan account of Sri.V.Kantharaju instead it was credited on 16.07.1998 and 29.10.1998 respectively. The petitioner submitted his reply and denied the charges leveled against him. The disciplinary authority appointed Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer. After holding a detailed inquiry, the officers submitted report holding that the petitioner is guilty of the charges. The respondent issued notice furnishing the copy of the report of the inquiry officer calling upon him to submit his objection to the report of the inquiry officer. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply inter-alia contending that the report of the inquiry officer is contrary to the evidence brought on record and that the findings are perverse. It is said that the respondent without considering the material on record, dismissed the petitioner from services of the bank with effect from 19.08.2003. On 08.10.2003, the petitioner filed statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal and confirmed the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority on 04.11.2003.
NC: 2023:KHC:42887 WP No. 13841 of 2018
As things stood thus, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) by invoking the provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. After failure of conciliation, the Government referred the dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bengaluru on 10.12.2004, for industrial adjudication under Section 10 of the I.D Act. The petitioner filed claim statement on 23.02.2005. The respondent filed counter statement on 25.08.2005. The Tribunal answered the preliminary issue holding that the inquiry conducted by the inquiry officer is fair and proper on 13.09.2006. Adjudicating the dispute in C.R.No.3/2005, the CGIT, Bengaluru passed an award on 22.01.2013 and confirmed the punishment of dismissal from service and rejected the dispute. It is this award that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.
NC: 2023:KHC:42887 WP No. 13841 of 2018
Ten Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety only) on 29.10.1998. The petitioner has not disputed the late remittance of amount into the account of the Customer V.Kantharaju. Needless to say that every employee should conduct himself honestly and act as a trusty of the fund in his possession. The inquiry officer took note of the material on record, rightly concluded that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of public fund. Hence, the order of punishment was passed and thereby, he was dismissed from service. The Industrial Tribunal also extenso referred to the material on record and justified in confirming the order of punishment.
I find no grounds to interfere with the award of the Industrial Tribunal. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed .
TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14
Sd/JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the award of the Industrial Tribunal confirming dismissal from service requires judicial interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Sri. H.Somashekar
The Chairman, Chitradurga Grameena Bank
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
