This High Court rejected a writ petition seeking to quash disciplinary proceedings against a banker. The Court held that the petitioner must establish his defense, noting that a prior marriage had been declared, and refused interference pending a related appeal, rejecting the plea to derail proceedings.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:20347 WP No. 11595 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11595 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
V R SRINIVAS S/O V.RAMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.D NO.88, KANAKAGIRI, SUEZ FORM ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURAM, MYSURU-570008
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIRISHA N R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
POST BOX NO.55,
NC: 2024:KHC:20347 WP No. 11595 of 2024
GANDHINAGAR, BALLARY-583103
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T P MUTHANNA., ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET ISSUED BY THE R2 WITH REFERENCE TO DISCIPLINARY ENQUIRY BEARING KAGB HO HRW IR CS 1818/23-24, DTD 02.02.24 ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
It is seen from the records that there is continued absence on behalf of the petitioner, and this Court could refer to the orders on 31.05.2024 and 04.06.2024. Sri. T. P. Muthanna, the learned counsel for the first and the second respondents, submits that this petition must be dismissed as it is only intended to derail the contemplated proceedings
NC: 2024:KHC:20347 WP No. 11595 of 2024
against the petitioner for violating the provisions of Regulation 29 of the Karnataka Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2019.
submits that the petitioner cannot deny, with the decision of the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru on 17.06.2019 in M.C.No.406/2017 clubbed with M.C.No.547/2017, that he has married for the second time and has declared the details of the spouse he has married during the subsistence of his marriage.
NC: 2024:KHC:20347 WP No. 11595 of 2024
is decided on merits, the respondent cannot hold that the petitioner was in prior matrimony.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RB
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition filed to quash disciplinary proceedings must be allowed on the grounds that a pending appeal challenges the initiation of said proceedings.
Whether the Disciplinary Authority can hold the petitioner had a prior marriage despite an appeal pending on this issue.
Whether Interference in disciplinary proceedings is required when the petitioner has not established his defense on record.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
V R Srinivas
Karnataka Gramene Bank
The Chief Manager and Disciplinary Authority
Mrs. Jascinta Bridget
B M Shyam Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
