Allowed¶45

The Regional Manager v. Smt Sudharani K

Karnataka HC1 Jun 2026WP/14128/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Central Bank of India clerk dismissed for unauthorized absence (06.10.2004 to 25.05.2007); CGIT Bengaluru award dated 01.12.2020 in CR 52/2009 ordered reinstatement with continuity of service without back wages; Karnataka HC writ petition under Articles 226/227 allowed and award set aside; proved misconduct plus fair domestic enquiry - Tribunal should not interfere with dismissal punishment; equity direction: no recovery of salary paid after reinstatement (employee reinstated 09.08.2021, promoted cashier June 2025); dispute referred under S.10(2A) Industrial Disputes Act 1947 by order No.L12012/69/2009-lR(B-ll) dated 24.11.2009.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned award dated 01.12.2020 in CR No.52/2009 set aside; Bank directed not to recover salary paid to the respondent after her reinstatement. ¶45

The Regional Manager Vs Smt Sudharani K — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned award dated 01.12.2020 in CR No.52/2009 set aside; Bank directed not to recover salary paid to the respondent after her reinstatement.

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India in dismissing the services of Smt. K. Sudha Rani w.e.f. 12.11.2007 was legal and justified, and to what relief the workman is entitled (terms of the dispute referred to the CGIT). +1 more

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The CGIT award is completely unsustainable on facts and law.

¶39

Key takeaways

Once the charge of unauthorized absence is proved and the domestic enquiry is conducted in all fairness, the Tribunal should not interfere with the punishment of dismissal from service; accordingly the impugned award is set aside.ratio¶39
On equity, taking note that the delinquent employee had already been reinstated (09.08.2021) and promoted as cashier (June 2025), the Bank is directed not to recover the payment of salary made to her after reinstatement into service.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (L-RES) No. 14128 of 2022, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (two-member Bench: Justice D K Singh authoring, with Justice Rajesh Rai K), decided 01.06.2026 - ALLOWED. The petition challenged the award dated 01.12.2020 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Bengaluru in CR No.52/2009 (dispute referred by Central Government order No.L12012/69/2009-lR(B-ll) dated 24.11.2009 under Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act 1947), whereby a Central Bank of India clerk dismissed for unauthorized absence from 06.10.2004 to 25.05.2007 had been reinstated with continuity of service but without back wages. Holding: with the charge of unauthorized absence proved in a domestic enquiry 'conducted in all fairness', the Tribunal should not have interfered with the punishment of dismissal; the award was 'completely unsustainable on facts and law'. Noting that the employee had meanwhile been reinstated on 09.08.2021 and promoted as cashier in June 2025, the Bench on equity directed the Bank not to recover the salary paid to her after reinstatement.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:25485-DB WP No. 14128 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 14128 OF 2022 (L-RES)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE REGIONAL MANAGER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE, PB NO.5129, NO.24, CRESENT ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 PRESENTLY SITUATED AT 2^ND FLOOR, GRAND MAJESTIC MALL, OPP: GUBBI VEERANNA RANGAMANDIRA, GANDHINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER PRAVIN K KINI …PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. VENUGOPAL M.S, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SMT SUDHARANI K W/O RANGANATH H D, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS CLERK, REGIONAL OFFICE, 2^ND FLOOR, GRAND MAJESTIC MALL, OPP: GUBBI VEERANNA RANGAMANDIRA,

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:25485-DB WP No. 14128 of 2022

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

GANDHINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 009

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI. V.S NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE AWARD DATED 01/12/2020 IN DISPUTE NO.CR 52/2009 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-O AND DISMISS THE REFERENCE/DISPUTE IN CR NO.52/2009 AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶27

The present writ petition has been filed impugning the award dated 01.12.2020 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court (for short 'CGIT') in CR No.52/2009.

¶28

The respondent was employed as a clerk in the petitioner-Bank. She remained absent from duty unauthorizedly

¶29

from 06.10.2004 to 25.05.2007 i.e., the date on which the charge sheet was issued to her. During the

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:25485-DB WP No. 14128 of 2022

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

departmental/domestic enquiry, the charge of unauthorized absence from duty for such a long period was found proved. The respondent/delinquent employee raised an industrial dispute and therefore, the Central Government vide order No.L12012/69/2009-lR(B-ll) dated 24.11.2009 referred the following dispute for adjudication before the CGIT under SubSection 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:

¶33

"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India in dismissing the services of Smt. K. Sudha Rani w.e.f. 12.11.2007 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman concerned is entitled?"

¶34

The CGIT held that the preliminary issue

¶35

regarding the fairness of the domestic enquiry was decided against the delinquent employee, and it was answered in the affirmative by holding that the domestic enquiry was conducted in all fairness. The findings of the enquiry officer regarding unauthorized absence of the respondent/delinquent employee as well as her previous two punishments on the same charge, which were part of the charge sheet, have also been taken note of. Despite

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:25485-DB WP No. 14128 of 2022

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

this, we find, in a strange manner the CGIT has allowed the reference in favour of the respondent/delinquent employee and directed her reinstatement with continuity of service without back wages.

¶39

We have gone through the award and we have no hesitation in saying that the award is completely unsustainable on facts and law. When the charge of unauthorized absence got proved and the enquiry was conducted in all fairness, the Tribunal should not have interfered with the punishment of dismissal from service.

¶40

Therefore, we set-aside the impugned award. However, we have to take note of subsequent development i.e., after the award was passed the delinquent employee was reinstated on 09.08.2021 and she has also been promoted in June, 2025 as cashier. Be that as it may, on equity, we therefore, direct the Bank not to recover the payment of salary made to the respondent/delinquent employee after she was reinstated into service by the Bank.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:25485-DB WP No. 14128 of 2022

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44