G Kavalappa Vs Bengaluru District and Bengaluru Rural District Central Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

BENGALURU DISTRICT AND BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD 5TH MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJAPETE. BANGALORE- 560 018 REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER

¶13

Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

MR. SYED ASSIF ENQUIRY OFFICER AND ASST. REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(RTD) NO.146, 3RD MAIN, 8TH CROSS MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560003

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. YOGESH D NAIK, AGA FOR R2)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING DOMESTIC ENQUIRY REPORT DATED- 03.05.2006 OF THE

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:49254 WP No. 100 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND DISMISSAL OF APPEAL NO.441/2012 DATED- 30.9.2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE A AND B, AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BANK TO RESTORE THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH ARREARS OF SALARY, INCLUDING RETIREMENT BENEFITS AND PROMOTION FROM TIME TO TIME WHICH IN DUE FROM THE DATE OF HIS SUSPENSION DATED21.01.2001 TO 31.07.2012 I.E., FOR ALMOST 12 YEARS OF SERVICE TILL HIS RETIREMENT.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the ‘Domestic Enquiry Report’ dated 03.05.2006, filed by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies produced as per Annexure-A and the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short

¶26

‘KAT’) dismissing the appeal produced as per Annexure-B and to restore the service of the petitioner with respondent No.1 – Bank, along with arrears of salary and all other consequential benefits.

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:49254 WP No. 100 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Heard Sri.Mallaiah M.R., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Somashekar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.Yogesh D. Naik, learned AGA for Respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.

¶31

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that he was working as a Manager in respondent No.1 – Bank. An allegation was made against him for misappropriation of Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.2,55,000/respectively. He was kept under suspension from 21.01.2002 to 31.07.2012 and separate charges were framed for having misappropriated the above said amounts. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was made to admit misappropriation of the amount by writing

¶32

a letter dated 28.10.2005 and made him to pay Rs.2 lakh, upon which, his suspension was revoked on the same day i.e., on 28.10.2005. Later a domestic enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 03.05.2006 holding that the petitioner is guilty of both the charges of

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:49254 WP No. 100 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

misappropriation. The petitioner was dismissed from the service as per order dated 31.01.2008.

¶37

The petitioner raised a dispute for the first time

¶38

before the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 30.06.2008. The said dispute was dismissed and when the petitioner approached KAT, the appeal was allowed. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.1 filed W.P.No.38344/2017 before this Court, which came to be allowed and the matter was remanded back to the KAT for fresh consideration. After remand, KAT reconsidered the contentions of the parties and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶39

It is the contention of the petitioner that he has not committed any misappropriation and he was forcibly made to sign on a letter dated 28.10.2005, admitting commission of misappropriation and forcibly he was made to pay Rs.2 lakh. But the petitioner has not raised any dispute with regard to the same. Even when the domestic

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:49254 WP No. 100 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

enquiry was held, he has not raised any such defence. Under such circumstances, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.

¶44

The materials on record disclose that the

¶45

petitioner had received a Cheque from Bharat Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Magadi for a sum of Rs.6 lakh dated 14.11.2000. It is the contention of respondent No.3, that the society had Fixed Deposit with respondent No.1 - bank and on maturity of the said amount, the Cheque was received by the petitioner and kept with him. The Fixed Deposit amount was paid by the petitioner to the society only on 25.11.2000. It is alleged that even though there was only a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- in the account of the Society, he presented the cheque dated 14.11.2000 and managed to get the cash of Rs.6 lakh taking advantage of his position as a Manager.

¶46

Annexure-R2 is the letter written by the

¶47

petitioner in his own handwriting, undertaking to set right the things. It is thereafter that the petitioner deposited

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:49254 WP No. 100 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Rs.2,48,000/- on 02.12.2000 and Rs.3,52,000/- on 04.12.2000, under two different challans. Now it is stated that even the two challans were destroyed by the petitioner. In that regard, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has drawn my attention to Annexure-R7 produced along with statement of objection, which is a letter written by the petitioner in his own handwriting dated 28.10.2005. It is thereafter the domestic enquiry was held, which resulted in filing of the enquiry report holding the petitioner guilty of both the charges, which led to dismissal of the petitioner from service.

¶52

It is also the contention of the learned counsel

¶53

for respondent No.1 that a Cheque belonging to the wife of the petitioner was discounted, which is against the Rules of the bank. The cheque was never presented for collection and only when shortage of fund was noticed, the petitioner admitted discounting of cheque belonging to his wife and paid Rs.2 lakh on 28.10.2005. Therefore, it is the contention of respondent No.1 that discounting of the

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:49254 WP No. 100 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

cheque is against the Rules of the Bank and illegal discounting of cheque, amounts to misappropriation of funds.

¶58

He places reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M.HONNALINGEGOWDA S/O MANGEGOWDA vs. THE BANGALORE DISTRICT AND

¶59

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT¹ , wherein the Division Bench of this Court considered a situation where the cheque was discounted contrary to the circular issued by the respondent restricting such discounting only to privileged customers and held that by such acts of the petitioner, he earned the mistrust and therefore upheld the dismissal from service.

¶60

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner filed W.P. No.4748/2024 and W.P. No.9919/2024 and both these petitions are already dismissed. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned

¶61

1 Writ Appeal No.1721/2008, dtd. 03.02.2009

¶62

8 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:49254 WP No. 100 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the criminal case, the petitioner is acquitted and therefore he could not be found guilty of misappropriation.

¶66

Even though acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case is admitted by the learned counsel for respondent No.1, he places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. (KPTCL) VS. C. NAGARAJU AND OTHERS² , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court considered its various earlier decisions and highlighted the settled position of law that acquittal by a Criminal Court does not preclude a departmental enquiry against a Delinquent Officer. It is held that when the evidence that is produced in the Departmental Enquiry is different from the materials that are produced before the criminal trial, the Disciplinary Authority is not bound by the judgment of the Criminal Court. The Court also noticed that the standard that is required in the Departmental Enquiry is 2 AIR 2019 SC 4308

¶67

9 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:49254 WP No. 100 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

not strictly based on the Rules of the evidence, whereas in

¶71

the criminal trial it is beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is held that when the order of dismissal is based on the evidence before the Enquiry Officer in a departmental enquiry which is different from the evidence available before the Criminal Court, dismissal of the delinquent official was held to be justified which do not call for any interference. This position of law is very well settled.

¶72

It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was suspended on 24.01.2001 and he has written a letter in his own handwriting on 28.10.2005 and remitted an amount of Rs.2 lakh to the Bank. If at all he has not committed any offence, there was absolutely no reason for

¶73

him to write the letter and to remit the amount of Rs.2 lakh. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was compelled and made to write such a letter and remit the amount forcibly cannot be accepted and the petitioner who was working as a Manager has not

¶74

10 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:49254 WP No. 100 of 2025

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

taken any action against respondent No.1 for such illegal acts.

¶78

It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner never challenged the order of suspension, initiation of departmental enquiry. He has also not challenged the articles of charges. Further, he has also not challenged the enquiry report dated 03.05.2006. For the first time, he has raised the dispute only on 30.06.2008, even though the dismissal order is dated 31.01.2008.

¶79

Admittedly, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.4748/2024 and W.P.No.9919/2024. It is also not in dispute that both these writ petitions came to be dismissed. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has not high-lighted any illegality in conducting the enquiry. His only contention is that the petitioner has not misappropriated any amount and his letter dated 28.10.2005 was forcibly taken from him and he was made to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakh. I do not find any merits in the

¶80

11 -

¶81

NC: 2025:KHC:49254 WP No. 100 of 2025

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

said contention. In view of the above, I’am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶84

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶85

JJ

¶86

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6

G Kavalappa v. Bengaluru District and Bengaluru Rural District Central Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Kavalappa v. Bengaluru District and Bengaluru Rural District Central Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Primary Agricultural Produce Co. Operative Society Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

M K Satish Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Puttaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Govinda Reddy Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Syndicate Ryathara Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Anuradha Vs the Special Land Acqusition Officer