A dismissed bank clerk challenged a Labour Court award confirming his dismissal for misconduct including dishonoured cheques and issuing no dues certificates improperly. The High Court held that non-signing of the charge sheet is a technical error not vitiating the enquiry and dismissed the petition.
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:4671 WP No. 47743 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.47743 OF 2016 (L-TER)
BETWEEN:
K. NAGARAJ S/O. LATE K. SANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT #08, 2ND FLOOR, 6TH MAIN, JNANAJYOTHI NAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 056.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI C.R. PATIL AND SRI REVANNA BELLARY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF REF. NO.47/14 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.
NC: 2024:KHC:4671 WP No. 47743 of 2016
LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-AN; QUASH THE AWARD DATED 18.06.2016 IN REF .NO.47/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-AN AND ETC,.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner-employee assails the award dated 18.06.2016 in Ref.No.47/2014 on the file of the Principle Labour Court, Bangalore (‘Labour Court’ for short), the order of dismissal dated 21.05.2008 passed by the second respondent, whereby, by the impugned order, the Labour Court rejected the reference.
preliminary enquiry was conducted, report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer holding the charges levelled against the petitioner was proved, the Disciplinary Authority based on the material available placed before the Authority, passed an order of dismissal of the petitioner from service. Appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority also came to be dismissed. Petitioner raised the dispute, Central Government referred the dispute to the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, claim statement came to be filed by the petitioner raising various grounds. The Bank appeared and filed its statement of objections.
that;
NC: 2024:KHC:4671 WP No. 47743 of 2016
manager and he has committed "gross misconduct" within the meaning of Regulation 3, clause (j), Chapter XI of the Canara Bank Service Code and action of the employee is prejudicial to the interest of the Bank having committed "gross misconduct" within the meaning of Regulation 3, clause (m), Chapter XI of the Canara Bank Service Code.
b) That, the employee had taken loan from one Sri. H.S. Venkatesh and he had issued a cheque which has been dishonored for insufficient funds and several other cheques were issued by him, which were dishonored for insufficient funds and the employee has misused the official position and caused damage to the image and reputation of the Bank and thus committed "gross misconduct" within the meaning of Regulation 3, clause (j), Chapter XI of Canara Bank Service Code.
committed "gross misconduct" within the
meaning of Regulation 3, clause (j), Chapter XI of Canara Bank Service Code.
Enquiry Officer being not satisfied with the reply, conducted enquiry and held that the charges levelled against the employee are proved based on the oral and documentary evidence that was placed before the enquiry officer.
NC: 2024:KHC:4671 WP No. 47743 of 2016
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is to the effect that the charge sheet which was issued to the petitioner was not signed and the enquiry conducted by the Disciplinary Authority is vitiated.
a. Whether the issuance of the charge-sheet without being signed vitiates the disciplinary proceedings?
b. Whether the material on record reveal that
any perversity in the order of the disciplinary authority warranting interference under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the ID Act’ for short)?
charge sheet undisputedly has been served on the workman, even assuming that the charge sheet is not signed, the employee having acknowledged the receipt of the charge sheet by signing the office copy and enquiry having been conducted by the Enquiry Officer and the employee having understood the contents of the charge sheet and having replied to the charge sheet, whether the employee can now contend that the charge sheet issued to the employee is not signed.
opportunity to the employee for defending himself against the charges levelled against him. Thus, the charge sheet is only to make known to the workman the charges which the employee proposes to prove against the workman in the domestic enquiry. The issuance of a charge sheet is not a penalty, but it is a procedural step in the course of a domestic enquiry and therefore, mere non-signing of the charge sheet by itself cannot ipso fact be held to vitiate the entire enquiry, if on evidence it is established that the employee was aware about the charges, an enquiry was held, evidence was led and the workman has participated in the proceedings and the issuance of charge sheet without the signature is only a technical error and the contention of the employee is that, non-signing of the charge sheet vitiates the entire enquiry cannot be sustainable in the eyes of law as non-signing of the charge sheet is in the nature of notice to the party and it is in the context of domestic enquiry.
1 (2002) 2 SCC 244
2 CA No.705/1962 D.D. 02.05.1963
NC: 2024:KHC:4671 WP No. 47743 of 2016
not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:
ORDER
Sd/JUDGE
DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an unsigned charge sheet vitiates the disciplinary proceedings?
Whether the dismissal order suffers from perversity warranting interference under Section 11A of the ID Act?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. vs. Ram Gopal Sharma & othersDistinguished¶14
(2002) 2 SCC 244 · Who else cites this
M/s. Khardah and Co. Ltd vs. The WorkmenDistinguished¶14
CA No.705/1962 D.D. 02.05.1963
6 provisions across 3 enactments
K. Nagaraj
The Chairman, Canara Bank, Head Office, Bangalore
The Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank, D.A. Cell, Circle Office, Hubballi
K.S. Hemalekha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
