P Raghuram Vs the General Manager — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

P Raghuram Vs the General Manager — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both writ appeals (by the Employee and the Employer-Bank) dismissed. Respondent-Bank directed to comply with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in Paragraph No.21 of the impugned order, with fresh 3 months' time granted for compliance; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Single Judge, having found the charges vague, ought to have allowed the Writ Petition in its entirety by quashing the order of dismissal and directing reinstatement, instead of substituting compulsory retirement (Employee's appeal). +1 more

Court's answer

The employee's submission that, once the allegations were held vague, the learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the entire Writ Petition (quashing dismissal and directing reinstatement) cannot be countenanced.

Ratio / Principle

The Writ Court exercising judicial review cannot sit as an appellate authority over the Disciplinary Authority, but where the punishment imposed is found to be strikingly disproportionate, exorbitant, harsh and shocking to the conscience of the Court, it has the power to interfere with the disciplinary authority's order.

Key takeaways

On the facts (about two decades of service, the branch worked at twice adjudged best, and no other allegations or past incidents), the learned Single Judge appropriately modified the dismissal and substituted it with compulsory retirement; the substitution of punishment presupposes that the enquiry held does not warrant any interference.ratio¶171
The learned Single Judge's exercise of judicial review is in accordance with service jurisprudence, and this Court's view is supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Umesh Kumar Pahwa (2022) 4 SCC 385, Paragraph 12, where punishment of removal too harsh and disproportionate was substituted with compulsory retirement considering that the Bank had lost confidence in the employee.ratio¶172

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Cross writ appeals under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 - by the employee (WA No.905/2025) and by the employer-Bank, Bank of Baroda (erstwhile Vijaya Bank) (WA No.603/2024) - against the learned Single Judge's order dated 04.10.2023 in W.P.No.7462/2003 (S-DE), which, in the second round of litigation, set aside the dismissal dated 13.12.2001 (confirmed in appeal on 04.05.2002) and substituted the penalty of dismissal with compulsory retirement with consequential monetary benefits. Held, dismissing both appeals: (i) the writ court in judicial review cannot sit as an appellate authority over the disciplinary authority, but where the punishment is strikingly disproportionate, exorbitant, harsh and shocking to the conscience of the court it has power to interfere; (ii) in none of the 13 charges did the Bank specifically allege that its interest was jeopardized, nor was any specific allegation of actual quantum of loss made out - the charges on financial loss were vague - distinguishing Nikunj Bihari Patnaik (1996) 9 SCC 69 and Bank of Baroda v. A.R.T. Arasu (WA No.199/2024); (iii) given the employee's about 20 years of service, the branch twice adjudged best, absence of other allegations and attainment of superannuation, substitution of dismissal with compulsory retirement was an appropriate exercise of judicial review, consistent with Umesh Kumar Pahwa (2022) 4 SCC 385 (para 12); the employee's plea for quashing of the dismissal and reinstatement in full was rejected. The Bank was directed to comply with the Single Judge's directions (Paragraph 21 of the impugned order) within a fresh period of 3 months; no order as to costs.

HC-KAR

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

R

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 905 OF 2025 (S-DE)

C/W

WRIT APPEAL NO. 603 OF 2024 (S-DE)

IN WA No. 905/2025

BETWEEN:

P RAGHURAM AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O P RAMAIAH FLAT NO.302, GOLDEN TOWERS, STREET NO.8 HABSIGUDA, HYDERABAD - 500 007.

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

…APPELLANT (BY SRI.SRI.VIGNESHWAR S.SHASTRI., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.K.R.GANESH RAO., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE GENERAL MANAGER, APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ZONAL OFFICE, VIJAYA BANK, NOW BANK OF BARODA, 41/2 M G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, (PERSONAL DEPT.) VIJAYA BANK, HEAD OFFICE 41/2, M G ROAD, PRESENTLY CHIEF MANAGER,

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

HC-KAR

H R HEAD, HRM DEPARTMENT, ZONAL OFFICE, BANK OF BARODA, 41/2 M G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, VIJAYA BANK 97/1, PARK STREET KOLKATA, PRESENTLY GENERAL MANAGER, ZONAL HEAD, ZONAL OFFICE, BANK OF BARODA, PLOT NO.3812, BLOCK G N SECTOR-V, SALT LAKE CITY, KOLKATTA - 700 091.

THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, VIJAYA BANK, BASHEET BAGH, HYDERABAD, PRESENTLY, GENERAL MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA, ZONAL HEAD, ZONAL OFFICE NO.3-6-289, KAREEM MANZIL OLD MLA QUARTERS, HYDERGUDA, HYDERABAD - 500 029.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SYED KASHIF., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.PRADEEP S.SAWKAR, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 04.10.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.No.7462/2003 (S) BY ALLOWING THE SAID W.P.No.7462/2003 WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN WA NO. 603/2024

BETWEEN:

THE GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL), APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BANK OF BARODA, (ERSTWHILE VIJAYA BANK) 41/2, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001

NOW BEING REPRESENTED BY SRI PRATHIB SARKAR, CHIEF MANAGER, HRM.

THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, (PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT), BANK OF BARODA, (ERSTWHILE VIJAYA BANK) HEAD OFFICE, 41/2, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001

NOW BEING REPRESENTED BY SRI PRATHIB SARKAR, CHIEF MANAGER, HRM.

THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, BANK OF BARODA, (ERSTWHILE VIJAYA BANK) 97/1, PARK STREET, KOLKATA

NOW BEING REPRESENTED BY SRI PRATHIB SARKAR, CHIEF MANAGER, HRM.

THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, BANK OF BARODA, (ERSTWHILE VIJAYA BANK) BASHEER BAGH, HYDERABAD

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

HC-KAR

NOW BEING REPRESENTED BY SRI PRATHIB SARKAR, CHIEF MANAGERM HRM.

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.SYED KASHIF., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.PRADEEP S.SAWKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

P RAGHURAM AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O P RAMAIAH FLAT NO.302, GOLDEN TOWERS, STREET NO.8, HABSIGUDA,

HYDERABAD - 500 007.

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.SRI.VIGNESHWAR S.SHASTRI., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.K.R.GANESH RAO., ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, ACT 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.10.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No. 7462/2003 (S-DE) BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION IN WP No.7462/2003 (S-DE) WITH COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

These two appeals being W.A.No.904/2025 and W.A.No.603/2024 are by Employee and Employer respectively under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 04.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.7462/2003.

The learned Single Judge by the impugned order, set-aside the order of dismissal dated 13.12.2001 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure-Q) and the order dated 04.05.2002 passed by respondent No.1 in appeal and modified the order by substituting order of penalty of dismissal with that of compulsory retirement from service and directed the respondents to grant all the benefits to which the petitioner would be entitled in view of substitution of the penalty and pay the same in favour of the petitioner in a time bound manner.

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

HC-KAR

The Employee called in question the

substitution of compulsory retirement and sought to allow the Writ Petition in its entirety and quash the order of punishment and for a direction to reinstate him in service, whereas the Employer called in question the order of substitution of punishment and sought to dismiss the Writ Petition.

Heard Sri.Vigneshwara S.Shastri., learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri.K.R.Ganesh Rao., learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.905/2025 and respondent in W.A.No.603/2024 and Sri.Syed Khashif., learned counsel appearing for Sri.Pradeep S.Sawkar., learned counsel for respondent No. in W.A.No.905/2025 and appellant in W.A.No.603/2024 respectively.

The parties are referred to as per their ranking

before the learned Single Judge.

The employee/petitioner filed Writ Petition No.7462/2003 seeking following reliefs:

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

HC-KAR

i) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the order dated 13-12-2001 passed by the 2^nd Respondent in Order No.PER/IRD/KOL/5599/2001 as at AnnexureQ to the Writ Petition in the interest of justice and equity.

ii) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the order dated 4-5-2002 passed by the 1^st respondent in Odrer No.PER/IRD/2120/2002 as at Annexure-S to the Writ Petition in the interest of justice and equity.

iii) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and equity.

iv) Issue any other writ, Order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in view of the facts and circumstances of the case stated above in the interest of justice and equity.

This appeal is the second round of litigation.

Earlier, the Employee filed Writ Petition calling in question the order of dismissal. The learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 25.10.2006, allowed the Writ

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

HC-KAR

Petition and set-aside the order of dismissal. The Employer preferred W.A.No.2167/2006 impugning the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, on 05.12.2011, dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, the Employer-Bank preferred Special Leave Petition No.34040/2012 (Civil Appeal No.7737/2014) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court on 14.08.2014, allowed the Special Leave Petition and set-

aside the order passed by the Division Bench and remanded the matter to the Division Bench for fresh disposal. The Division Bench thereafter, on 26.03.2019, allowed the appeal and set-aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25.10.2006, however, remanded the matter to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration. The learned Single Judge upon reconsideration, allowed the Writ Petition in part and modified the order of dismissal, substituting the order of

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

HC-KAR

dismissal with that of compulsory retirement along with other directions for monetary benefits.

As per the Employee/petitioner:

The petitioner was initially appointed on 31.11.1982 as Probationary Officer and was posted to the Regional Office, Vijaya Bank, Guwahati. The probation was declared and his services were subsequently confirmed. The petitioner thereafter, appeared for provisional examination for promotion to Middle Management Grade ('MMG' for short) and stood third in rank in All India Exams. He was promoted as Manager, MMG and was posted on 17.04.1997 to Cuttack Branch. Between 1995 and 1997, he was working as Branch Manager at I- Polavaram Branch. The said Branch was adjudged as the best branch for that year. In the following year, it was adjudged as the second best branch of the entire Vijayawada.

Thereafter, in July 1999, the petitioner was transferred from Cuttack Branch to Regional Office,

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

HC-KAR

Calcutta. He was relieved from service during his absence and an order of suspension was passed against him on 16.01.2000, pending enquiry with respect of certain allegations regarding granting of loans at I-Polavaram Branch.

A Charge memo came to be issued against the petitioner on 17.05.2000, but served on 19.07.2000, however no documents mentioned in the Charge memo relied by the Management during the enquiry were annexed with the charge memo served on the petitioner. On 22.07.2000, the petitioner requested respondent No.3 for furnishing the documents and records, to submit his reply to the charges framed against him. However, they were not furnished. He sent two reminders on 14.08.2000 and 17.08.2000, but nothing happened thereafter also. However, on 12.09.2000, some documents were sent from respondent No.3, but all the documents were not furnished. All his efforts in seeking the entire documents

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

HC-KAR

went in vain and the third respondent giving evasive replies, withheld the documents.

By an order dated 31.07.2000, one Sri.B.K.Mohanty, Senior Manager was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to hold enquiry against the petitioner as per the Charge Memo and the same was informed to the petitioner stating that enquiry would commence on 19.09.2000.

Since the mother of the petitioner was indisposed/unwell and admitted to the hospital, the petitioner sent a telegram on 18.09.2000 seeking for an adjournment. Though the said telegram was received on 19.09.2000 itself, the fact was not brought to the notice of the enquiry officer, which is evident from the letter of respondent No.3 dated 22.09.2000. The enquiry was held in the absence of the petitioner, wherein 80 documents were produced and marked by the Management on both dates of enquiry that is 19.09.2000 and 20.09.2000. None

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

HC-KAR

of the documents marked were furnished to the petitioner along with the Charge Memo. Thereafter, the enquiry was scheduled on 16.10.2000 and it was adjourned to 05.12.2000 at the request of the petitioner. On 05.12.2000, the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer however he was not furnished with the documents in spite of his earlier request letters stated supra. The petitioner made a request to the Enquiry Officer to permit him to take some documents from the Bank at Cuttack Branch to prove his innocence. On 05.12.2000, the Enquiry Officer passed an order and permitted the petitioner to obtain letter from Cuttack Branch and has intimated to provide all the documents required by the petitioner and adjourned the matter to 31.01.2001. Though the letter was given by the petitioner for furnishing the documents, the Branch Manager of the Cuttack Branch furnished with only six documents. The petitioner also submitted a request letter dated

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

HC-KAR

11.02.2001, seeking a direction to the Branch Manager to send the remaining papers to him.

On 13.01.2001, at the request of the defence counsel assisting the petitioner, proceedings were adjourned to 14.02.2001 since the petitioner was called in acute conjunctivitis during the second week of February 2001 and he could not attend the enquiry. He has sent letter as well as a Fax on 12.02.2001 to respondent No.3 and Enquiry officer requesting to adjourn the enquiry proceedings. Though the letter was received through Courier services and the Fax message, the enquiry was conducted ex-parte from 14.02.2001 to 17.02.2001. The management examined its 5 witnesses, out of 5 witnesses, 3 were of officials whose names were not mentioned in the witnesses list accompanying the Charge Memo. The petitioner after learning that the matter proceeded exparte , sent a letter to respondent No.3 requesting to hold a re-enquiry. Respondent No.3 by letter dated 12.05.2001, advised the Enquiry Officer to reopen the department

14 - NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

HC-KAR

enquiry, but with limited extent to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the management witnesses.

Pursuant to the letter, the enquiry was again rescheduled on 28.05.2001 and 29.05.2001 and the petitioner was permitted to cross-examine the management witnesses, but not permitted to lead any evidence on his behalf so also to produce any documents to put forth his case. On 23.08.2001, the Enquiry Officer completed the enquiry and forwarded a report to the Disciplinary Authority. The same was communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his detailed objection to the Enquiry report. Respondent No.2 thereafter, considering the enquiry report as well as the reply submitted by the petitioner, passed an order dated 13.12.2001, dismissing the petitioner’s service from the Bank with immediate effect, which is disqualification for future employment. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.1, which

15 - NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

HC-KAR

was also resulted in dismissal. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner approached this Court in the year 2003 which we have already narrated above.

As per the Respondent/Bank:

The respondent - Bank after acceptance of notice, filed statement of objection denying the allegations in the Writ Petition, specifically taking the contentions referring to Regulation 6 of the Vijaya Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1991 (for short ‘the Regulations’) to state that the Regulation does not provide that the documents to be furnished to the charge sheeted officer along with the charge sheet at the time when the charge sheet came to be issued to the petitioner and further contended that though the petitioner was given 15 days time to furnish his reply to the charge memo, he has not submitted his statement of defence even after stipulated time, accordingly, it was decided to proceed hold the departmental enquiry. As such, the

16 - NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

HC-KAR

averments stating that no opportunity has been granted to him and enquiry was biased and malafide are untenable, baseless and denied.

It was further submitted that the enquiry was held in terms of the Regulations and in full compliance of principles of natural justice. Throughout the enquiry, several adjournments have been provided at the instance of the petitioner enabling him to defend the case. Even the enquiry was reopened for the purpose for cross-examining the witnesses, which was closed earlier. This clearly shows that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to put forth his defence. On reopening the enquiry, the petitioner attended the enquiry and cross examined all the management witnesses and produced 14 documents in his defence. In these circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that he was not provided with any opportunity to place documents is untenable in law.

17 - NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

HC-KAR

It is further contended by the respondent -

Bank that after careful analyzing of the entire evidence that surfaced during the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report along with his findings on the charges levelled against the petitioner 13 in numbers, were proved. The enquiry was conducted with all fairness by providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to present his case. As such, the allegations stating that he was not provided sufficient opportunity are incorrect and denied.

It is further submitted and specifically contended that the charges pressed against the petitioner for the misconduct while he was working as Branch Manager, Cuttack, are grave in nature. There are serious irregularities in the matter of sanction, disbursement, documentation, monitoring and follow-up of loans and allowing over-drawings in CC A/cs & OD A/cs of the parties in excess of his delegated powers, sanctioning loans against term deposits in violation of Court order;

18 - NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

HC-KAR

submitting false MR-2 Certificate to controlling office, etc., cannot be termed as misconduct of minor aspects as contended by the petitioner.

It is further contended that the petitioner had sanctioned OD limit to a non-existing person under OD A/c No.9/98 and the petitioner has availed proceeds of the said account deriving undue pecuniary benefits to himself.

Apart from above contentions, the Bank has also contended that the petitioner has failed to ensure that loan documents executed by borrowers were completely filled up by them and the same were appropriately stamped as

per guidelines in manual of instructions. The said acts of the petitioner are prejudicial and detrimental to the interest of the Bank and are likely to expose the Bank to the risk of incurring huge financial loss. As such, the allegations on irregularities were very serious in nature and warrants punishment of dismissal from service, which is properly considered and does not call for any interference and sought to dismiss the Writ Petition.

19 - NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

HC-KAR

The learned Single Judge after considering the entire material in the second round of litigation, formed an opinion that though there were 13 charges pressed against the petitioner, some of the charges, especially the one regarding loss to the Bank as contended by the respondent - Bank in its statement of objection were found to be vague. There were no specific allegation in the charges of actual financial loss caused to the Bank. The learned Single Judge held that the Appellate Authority has also merely observed that the Bank was exposed to financial loss and it has not recorded any finding as to the actual quantum of financial loss caused to the Bank. The main allegation against the petitioner was that he has not followed established procedures, however there is no specific allegations regarding the actual financial loss caused to the Bank and found that this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Enquiry Officer as well as the Appellate Authority. The learned Single Judge after going through the enquiry report has held that the

20 - NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

HC-KAR

enquiry held against the petitioner was after giving adequate reasons and after considering the contentions advanced by the petitioner and the same cannot be found fault with. However the punishment imposed in the absence of any specific allegations which now being pressed against the petitioner in the statement of objection and as they were not found in the charges against the petitioner, has held that on mere surmises and conjunctures, in the absence of any specific allegations in

charges regarding actual quantum of loss caused to the Bank, both the order passed by the disciplinary authority on the basis of the enquiry report in dismissing the petitioner from service and appellate authority confirming the same are harsh and grossly disproportionate to the charges that has been levelled against the petitioner. The learned Single Judge considering the past service of the petitioner that he has rendered 20 years of service in the Bank and had been litigating for the past 22 years and now having attained the age of superannuation, observed

21 - NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

HC-KAR

that at this belated point of time, maintaining the order of dismissal would be inequitable and disproportionately harsh. In these circumstances, held that the dismissal from service with immediate effect is unjustified and substituted the same with that of compulsory retirement and directed the respondent Bank to pay all consequential benefits to which the petitioner is entitled for in a time bound manner. It is this order passed by the learned Single Judge is called in question in these two appeals by the Employee as well as the Employer.

Sri.Vigneshwara S.Shastri, learned Senior

Counsel submits that once the Court having found that the charges levelled against the petitioner are vague and there is no actual financial loss caused to the Bank, the learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the petition in its entirety setting aside the order of dismissal. Learned Senior counsel submits that though the learned Single Judge has held that the enquiry cannot be found fault with, however the documents produced in view of the

22 - NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

HC-KAR

contentions taken by the petitioner speaks itself that the petitioner has not been afforded with appropriate reasonable opportunities and which would oppose to the well settled principles of natural justice. The enquiry held was opposed to the principles of natural justice as such vitiated and required to be set-aside. With this, learned Senior counsel submits that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered these aspects of the matter and allowed the petition in its entirety, setting aside the order of dismissal as prayed for granting other remedies sought for and accordingly, sought to allow the Writ Petition.

In contrast, Sri.Syed Khashif., strenuously

pointing at Paragraph 14 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge with all vehemence submits that, once the learned Single Judge has come to a conclusion that the enquiry held against the petitioner is fair and proper and cannot be found fault with, the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered and altered the punishment as if sitting in the power of appellate

23 - NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

HC-KAR

authority. He further submits that the procedural irregularities which were pressed against the petitioner are very grave and it had brought bad name to the Bank. The petitioner who was discharging his function as Branch Manager should have followed the procedures established

under the Rules governing the Bank transactions, any deviation is a grave misconduct and the evidence speaks about the same. He submits that both the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority considered these aspects of the matter and passed the order of dismissal and confirmed the same. The Writ Court exercising its power under judicial review ought not to have interfered with the order passed by the disciplinary authority as if sitting in the Appellate Authority which is not at all available to the Writ Court in view of catena of judgments passed by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court. To buttress his arguments, he has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

DISIPLINARY AUTHORITY CUM REGIONAL MANAGER

24 - NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

HC-KAR

AND OTHERS VS. NIKUNJ BIHARI PATNAIK reported in (1996) 9 SCC 69 and referring to Paragraph 7 submits that when the Rules requires the officer/employee to maintain good conduct and discipline and to act to the best of his judgment in performance of his official duties or in exercise of the powers conferred upon him, he must adhere to it, any breach of said Rules is misconduct within the meaning of the Regulation. Learned counsel further submits referring the very same paragraph, that even in some of the cases, no loss has resulted from such acts and in some other instances such acts have yielded profit to the Bank but it is equally true that in some other incidents, the funds of the bank have been placed in jeopardy. If each officer/ employee is allowed to act beyond his power, the discipline of the bank will disappear. Each officer of the bank cannot be allowed to carve out his own little empire wherein he dispenses favours and largesse. He further submits that referring to the very same paragraph that, a bank cannot function properly and

25 - NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

HC-KAR

effectively if its officers and employees do not observe the prescribed norms and discipline by giving go-bye to the established procedures, such indiscipline cannot be condoned merely because there is no actual loss suffered by the Bank.

Learned counsel further relied on the Judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in BANK OF

BARODA AND OTHERS VS. SHRI.A.R.T. ARASU in WRIT APPEAL NO.199/2024 dated 12.09.2025 and referring to Paragraph 12 submitted that, once the learned Single Judge has specifically found that there is no illegality in the procedure and the conduct of disciplinary proceedings as against the respondent, it ought not to have interfered in the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority. He further submits that in the cases involving the bank employees handling public money, a high degree of integrity is expected. Even small deviations can justify dismissal. With these, learned counsel submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider these

26 - NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

HC-KAR

aspects of the matter and interfered with the order of dismissal, assuming the power of Appellate Authority which is not available while exercising power under judicial review, and sought to allow the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ petition.

Having considered the rival submissions, we have perused both the writ appeal papers.

As has been noticed in both the cases relied on by learned counsel for the respondent Bank, the consideration was on the basis of the interest of the Bank being jeopardized. Learned counsel for respondent bank is unable to point out in any of the 13 charges pressed against the petitioner, the bank has specifically contented that the interest of the bank has been jeopardized due to non-adhering to the established norms or following established procedures. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent - Bank has failed to make out from the 13

27 - NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

HC-KAR

charges any specific allegations regarding the actual quantum of loss suffered by the Bank. In these circumstances, the learned single judge while reasoning his order from Paragraphs 15 to 20 has held that the charges which were pressed regarding the financial loss were vague and the Appellate Authority merely observed that the bank was exposed to the financial loss in the absence of any material to that effect. In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge passed the order, modifying the penalty of dismissal by substituting the same with that of compulsory retirement.

It is trite law that, as argued by learned counsel for the respondent - Bank, the Writ Court is exercising judicial review in a disciplinary case. It is also trite that, the Writ Court cannot sit as Appellate Authority on the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority (for short 'the D.A'), since that exercise has already been exercised by the Appellate Authority provided under the Regulations in which the disciplinary inquiry has taken place. However,

28 - NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

HC-KAR

the Writ Court while exercising its powers under judicial review, if found that the punishment imposed is strikingly disproportionate, exorbitant, harsh and shocking to the concise of the Court, has all power to interfere with the order passed by the D.A. Each case depends on the facts stated in the said case. The instances may be same, but the facts may differ. The Coordinate Bench in BANK OF BARODA stated supra though set-aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge, but remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority to take a call on the order of dismissal passed by the D.A.

In the case on hand, the learned Single Judge has considered the services of the petitioner that he has rendered to the bank for two decades and is also responsible for adjudging the branch where he worked as Best Branch twice. Further during 20 years, there are no other allegations and past incidents against him except the one under which the departmental enquiry is held. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion

29 - NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

HC-KAR

that the learned Single Judge while exercising his judicial review appropriately modified the order and substituted the same from dismissal with that of compulsory retirement, perhaps on the fact that the Bank has lost confidence in the employee. The substitution of punishment presupposes that the enquiry held does not warrant any interference. In these circumstances, the submissions of the learned Senior counsel that the learned Single Judge once having held that the allegations are vague ought to have allowed the entire Writ Petition cannot be countenanced.

So far as exercise of judicial review exercised by the learned Single Judge is concerned, which we found is in accordance with the service jurisprudence. Our view is also supported by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UMESH KUMAR PAHWA VS. BOARD

OF DIRECTORS UTTARAKHAND AND GRAMIN BANK

AND OTHERS reported in (2022) 4 SCC 385, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court at Paragraph 12 has held that

30 - NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

HC-KAR

when the punishment of removal for the charges proved and misconduct established is too harsh and disproportionate, substituting the same with that of compulsory retirement considering the fact that the Bank has lost confidence in the employee. In these circumstances, no case has been made out either by the Employee or the Employer-Bank to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge either to allow the Writ Petition in its entirety or to dismiss the Writ Petition by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

In these circumstances, both the appellants, that is, the Employee as well as the Employer have failed to make out any case to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, both the Writ Appeals fail and are dismissed .

We direct the respondent - Bank to comply the directions issued by the learned single Judge, stated in

31 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB WA No. 905 of 2025 C/W WA No. 603 of 2024

HC-KAR

Paragraph No.21 of the order impugned. Further, fresh 3 months time is granted for compliance. In the facts and

circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 04.10.2023 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7462/2003 (S-DE): set aside the order of dismissal dated 13.12.2001 (Annexure-Q) and the appellate order dated 04.05.2002, substituted the penalty of dismissal with compulsory retirement and directed the Bank to grant all consequential benefits in a time bound manner.¶59
Learned Single Judge, High Court of Karnataka · 04.10.2023
Prior proceeding
Petitioner, while working as Branch Manager, was suspended on 16.01.2000 pending enquiry into allegations regarding granting of loans at I-Polavaram Branch; charge memo issued 17.05.2000 and served 19.07.2000.¶88
Prior proceeding
Disciplinary Authority (Respondent No.2), on the Enquiry Officer's report, passed order dated 13.12.2001 (Order No.PER/IRD/KOL/5599/2001, Annexure-Q) dismissing the petitioner from service with immediate effect, a disqualification for future employment; 13 charges were held proved.¶105
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's appeal before Respondent No.1 (Appellate Authority) was dismissed by order dated 04.05.2002 (Order No.PER/IRD/2120/2002, Annexure-S).¶71
Prior proceeding
First round: Employee filed a writ petition challenging the order of dismissal; the learned Single Judge by order dated 25.10.2006 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of dismissal.¶75
Prior proceeding
Employer preferred W.A.No.2167/2006; the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 05.12.2011 dismissed the appeal, confirming the learned Single Judge's order.¶78
Prior proceeding
Employer-Bank preferred Special Leave Petition No.34040/2012 (Civil Appeal No.7737/2014) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court; on 14.08.2014 the Supreme Court allowed the SLP, set aside the Division Bench order and remanded the matter to the Division Bench for fresh disposal.¶78
Prior proceeding
Division Bench on 26.03.2019 allowed the employer's appeal, set aside the learned Single Judge's order dated 25.10.2006, and remanded the matter to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration.¶79
Prior proceeding
Upon reconsideration, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition in part, modifying the order of dismissal by substituting it with compulsory retirement along with directions for monetary benefits - the order dated 04.10.2023 now impugned in both appeals.¶79