A writ petition challenging compulsory retirement of a bank officer. The High Court examined allegations of card misuse and denial of natural justice, finding the charges well-laid and the punishment appropriate despite the petitioner's claims of duress.
Petition rejected; compensation for back wages not granted.
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:23083 WP No. 41682 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 41682 OF 2012 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
R SHANMUKAPPA SON OF LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOAUT 50 YEARS STAFF NO.55512 EX.OFFICER, CANARA BANK MADHAVANAGAR BRANCH BANGALORE - 560020
Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
RESIDING AT NO.56, 9TH CROSS, KALANAGAR K.G.HALLI, JALAHALLI WEST, OPP: SAJEEV ENGINEERING WORKS BANGALORE-560015
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ABHIRUP PAUL BANGARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T P MUTHANNA ., ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ALL PROCEEDINGS AS PER ANN-R,S,T, V, W VIDE ORDER DT.30.8.05, 3.11.05, 22.4.06, 28.6.06, & 11.6.07 PASSED BY THE R1 TO R4; DIRECT THE
NC: 2024:KHC:23083 WP No. 41682 of 2012
RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE BACK WAGES OF THE PETITONER FROM THE DATE OF HIS REMOVAL FROM THE SERVICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner was working as an Officer with the respondents' Madhavanagar Branch, Bengaluru during the period 12.02.2004 and 02.09.2005. The petitioner is served with the charge memo on 03.11.2005, and with the conclusion of the inquiry and the Inquiry Officer filing report opining that the charges against the petitioner are proved, the Disciplinary Authority, by its order dated 28.06.2006, has imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. The Appellate Authority has dismissed the petitioner's appeal as against the Disciplinary Authority's order by the order dated 11.06.2007. It is undisputed that consequent to these orders, all
NC: 2024:KHC:23083 WP No. 41682 of 2012
financial benefits payable to the petitioner, have been paid.
two-fold. The first charge is that the petitioner has gained access to a customer's credit card which was captured by an ATM Machine and that he used this card under transactions for his personal gain viz ., to buy petrol and make purchases at a gift store. It is alleged that the petitioner purchased petrol for a sum of Rs.400/and purchased material worth
Rs.10,000/- at a gift store. The elaboration of this charge is as follows:
respondents' customer, was issued with both debit and credit cards as against his account and he visited the respondents' ATM at Madhavanagar Branch and instead of swiping the debit card, he swiped credit card resulting in the credit card being captured.
ATM card along with the Manager, has misused the access key to retrieve the captured credit
card as one key holder could access the machine to use such card while two keys would be required to open the cash bin.
access to the captured credit card, has utilized the same for two transactions.
NC: 2024:KHC:23083 WP No. 41682 of 2012
NC: 2024:KHC:23083 WP No. 41682 of 2012
record and that the second charge is proved because the petitioner has not placed any other material to rebut the evidentiary value of the documents produced to demonstrate that he had reported loss of a debit card and obtained a fresh card and had used both cards to draw money. The Disciplinary Authority, in the light of this report and considering the material on record, has imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement and the Appellate Authority has confirmed the same.
NC: 2024:KHC:23083 WP No. 41682 of 2012
the acknowledgments [Exbs.19 and 20]. Sri. Abhirup Paul Bangara also contends that this Court must intervene with the punishment of compulsory retirement, in the facts and circumstances, as it must shock this Court's judicial conscience.
NC: 2024:KHC:23083 WP No. 41682 of 2012
concluded in violation of principles of natural justice, submits that the petitioner's application to summon the Manager, who allegedly brought him under duress to summon the Letters [Exbs.19 and 20], must be examined in the light of the fact that these statements are given in writing in the month of August 2005, but the petitioner has not raised any complaint about he being brought under duress by another employee with the Bank until he makes this application.
NC: 2024:KHC:23083 WP No. 41682 of 2012
any role in informing the witness without the petitioner bringing on record that the witnesses were either willing to testify in the proceedings or otherwise, and that it would always be open to these Officers to communicate in writing that they were willing to testify.
NC: 2024:KHC:23083 WP No. 41682 of 2012
duress to sign the Letters only because he files an application to summon the person who allegedly brought him under duress or because he has filed his Written Statement in the Inquiry Proceedings.
petitioner offers no explanation whatsoever for submitting, for reimbursement, the bill issued by a petrol bunk based on the captured credit card, indicate that the charges against the petitioner are well laid; otherwise there can be no other explanation for the petitioner applying for reimbursement of the expense incurred using the captured credit card. Further, the petitioner has not offered any cogent defense as regards the signature in the payment slip at the outlet. It is settled that this Court will not interfere when reasonable opportunity is extended, and there is some evidence to establish the alleged charge as against a case where there is no material evidence at all or some evidence is not considered.
NC: 2024:KHC:23083 WP No. 41682 of 2012
discussed thereof, cannot opine that the petitioner's case comes under this category. Therefore, there cannot be any interference. As regards the punishment being disproportionate, the threshold for interference is high, and this Court must record that its conscience is shocked. In the present case where it is shown that the petitioner has accessed the ATM to retrieve the captured card and used the same, this Court, especially given the trust that the Bank and its clients repose in its Officers, cannot opine that the decision to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement shocks this Court's conscience. Therefore, the petition is rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
RB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in the order of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner for misuse of bank cards.
Whether there was a denial of fair opportunity due to rejection of application to summon a witness.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R Shanmukappa
The General Manager Appellate Authority Canara Bank
The Deputy General Manager Disciplinary Authority Canara Bank
U.K.Vaidya
M.S.Bhat
The Branch Manager Canara Bank Madhavanagar Branch
B M Shyam Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
