Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB
WA No. 905 of 2025
C/W WA No. 603 of 2024
R
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 6 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.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SRI.VIGNESHWAR S.SHASTRI., SENIOR ADVOCATE
FOR SRI.K.R.GANESH RAO., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
REKHA R
Location:
High Court
of
Karnataka
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ZONAL OFFICE,
VIJAYA BANK,
NOW BANK OF BARODA,
41/2 M G ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. 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.
3.
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.
4.
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:
1. 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.
2.
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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
2. 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
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the learned Single Judge.
6. 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
nd
passed by the 2 Respondent in Order
No.PER/IRD/KOL/5599/2001 as at Annexure-
Q 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
st
passed by the 1 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.
7. 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:
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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 ex-
parte , 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.
14. 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:
15. 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.
16. 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
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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
or
best of his judgment in performance of his official duties
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.
23. 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.
24. Having considered the rival submissions, we
have perused both the writ appeal papers.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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 .
30. 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
NC: 2026:KHC:13977-DB
WA No. 905 of 2025
C/W WA No. 603 of 2024
R
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 6 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.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SRI.VIGNESHWAR S.SHASTRI., SENIOR ADVOCATE
FOR SRI.K.R.GANESH RAO., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
REKHA R
Location:
High Court
of
Karnataka
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ZONAL OFFICE,
VIJAYA BANK,
NOW BANK OF BARODA,
41/2 M G ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. 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.
3.
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.
4.
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:
1. 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.
2.
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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
2. 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
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the learned Single Judge.
6. 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
nd
passed by the 2 Respondent in Order
No.PER/IRD/KOL/5599/2001 as at Annexure-
Q 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
st
passed by the 1 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.
7. 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:
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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 ex-
parte , 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.
14. 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:
15. 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.
16. 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
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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
or
best of his judgment in performance of his official duties
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.
23. 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.
24. Having considered the rival submissions, we
have perused both the writ appeal papers.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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 .
30. 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