A.V.KULKARNI S/O LATE VENKAT RAO vs KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10704-DB
WA No. 200027 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030005532016



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA


KALABURAGI BENCH


ST
DATED THIS THE 1 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

WRIT APPEAL NO. 200027 OF 2016 (S-DE)


BETWEEN:

A.V. KULKARNI S/O LATE VENKATA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCC: EARLIER WORKING AS ,
BRANCH MANAGER AND OFFICER IN,
JUNIOR MANAGEMENT, GRADE SCALE-I,
AT KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEENA BANK,
SINDAGI BRANCH,
SINCE ILLEGALLY DISMISSED FROM SERVICE
AND R/ AT HOUSE NO.44,
NEAR BUS DEPOT NO.2,
VIDYANAGAR COLONY,
KALABURAGI-585103.

…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M. NARAYANA BHAT,
SRI. SUDHEER KULKARNI AND

SRI. KADLOOR SATYANARAYANACHARYA, ADVOCATES)








Digitally signed by
B NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA


AND:

KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK
A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE
REGIONAL RURAL BANKS ACT, 1976,

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10704-DB
WA No. 200027 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030005532016


HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE
AT BELGAUM ROAD,
DHARWAD-580008.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S.S. HALALLI, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS IN WP NO.84077/2009 (S-DE) AND SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 18.12.2015 OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

1. This intra-Court appeal is filed by the appellant
challenging the order dated 18.12.2015 passed in
W.P.No.84077 of 2009.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are as
follows:

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10704-DB
WA No. 200027 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030005532016


The appellant joined the services of the
respondent-Bank on 07.05.1984 and had excellent
service record of over 25 years and he has been
compulsorily retired from service and an
unconscionable recovery has been ordered from him
in a grossly arbitrary, discriminatory and unlawful
manner pursuant to a farce of an enquiry on charges
of misconduct which in effect were for lack of
supervision on the part of the appellant in the matter
of fraud and misappropriation committed by a
subordinate working in the Branch ignoring the fact
that the employee was enabled to commit frauds not
because of any lapse on the part of the appellant, but
due to defective system in the Bank. The appellant
aggrieved by the order of punishment, approached
the appellate authority, whereby the appeal was
rejected vide order dated 20.07.2009. Aggrieved by
the order of punishment passed by the appellate
authority, the appellant preferred a writ petition in

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10704-DB
WA No. 200027 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030005532016


W.P.No.84077 of 2009. The learned Single Judge
vide order dated 18.12.2015 dismissed the writ
petition. The appellant aggrieved by the order
passed in the Writ Petition No.84077 of 2009 filed
this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant through video conferencing and learned
counsel for the respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has not committed any fraud or
misappropriation. It was committed by the
subordinate staff. He submits that sufficient
opportunity was not provided to the appellant during
the course of enquiry. Thus, there is a violation of
principles of natural justice. To buttress his
arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of General
Manager, North East Frontier Railway and

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10704-DB
WA No. 200027 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030005532016


1
Others v. Dinabandhu Chakraborty . He also
submits that the order of punishment is
disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. Hence,
on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ appeal.
5. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent-Bank
submits that scope of writ appeal is very limited and
he submits that the disciplinary authority after
conducting investigation submitted a report opining
that the charges levelled against the appellant are
proved and the respondent has rightly passed an
order of punishment of compulsory retirement and
recovery of the said amount. He submits that the
appellant is working in a Bank and holds a position of
trust and confidence and if the employee of the Bank
commits a breach of trust, then there will be a loss of
confidence and trust. To buttress his arguments, he
has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble

1
( 1971) 3 SCC 883

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10704-DB
WA No. 200027 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030005532016


Apex Court in the case of Central Industrial
2
Security Force and Others v. Abrar Ali . He
submits that interference in the service matters with
the findings of the disciplinary authority, the scope is
very limited. The High Court cannot re-appreciate the
evidence under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution
of India. He submits that the learned Single Judge
was justified in dismissing the writ petition. Hence,
on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ
appeal.
6. Perused the records and considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is an undisputed fact that the enquiry was
conducted against the appellant by the disciplinary
authority and on the basis of a report submitted by
the disciplinary authority a second show-cause notice
was issued to the appellant along with the enquiry

2
[(2017) 4 SCC 507

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10704-DB
WA No. 200027 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030005532016


report. The appellant has submitted a reply to the
second show-cause notice. The disciplinary authority,
after considering the enquiry report and reply
submitted by the appellant has passed an order of
compulsory retirement and recovery of the amount.
The charges levelled against the appellant are
serious in nature. Admittedly, the appellant was
working in the Bank and he was holding a position of
trust and confidence, if the employee commits a
breach of trust, then there will be loss of confidence
and trust.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kanhaiyalal
Agarwal and Others v. Factory Manager,
3
Gwalior Sugar Company Limited , in paragraph
Nos.9 & 10 held that:
“"9. Substantial contention on the merits of the
case by the employer in these appeals is that
the finding of loss of confidence in the employee

3
(2002) SCC (L&S) 257

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10704-DB
WA No. 200027 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030005532016


by the labour court has been reversed in appeal
by the Industrial Court on unreasonable
grounds. What must be pleaded and proved to
invoke the aforesaid principle is that (i) the
workman is holding a position of trust and
confidence; (ii) by abusing such position, he
commits acts which results in forfeiting the
same; and (iii) to continue him in service would
be embarrassing and inconvenient to the
employer or would be detrimental to the
discipline security or of the establishment. All
these three aspects must be present to refuse
reinstatement on the ground of loss of
confidence.
Loss of confidence cannot be subjective
based upon the mind of the Management.
Objective facts which would lead to a definite
inference of apprehension in the mind of the
Management regarding trustworthiness or
reliability of the employee must be alleged and
proved. Else, the right of reinstatement
ordinarily available to the employee will be
lost.
10. Tested on these principles on the charges
against the workmen concerned on the proved
facts whether there was any loss of confidence

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10704-DB
WA No. 200027 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030005532016


so far as the workmen were concerned, the
inferences have been appropriately drawn."
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Disciplinary
Authority - Cum - Regional Manager and Others
4
v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik has held as under
paragraph No.8 as follows:
“"8. We must mention that Shri V.A.
Mohta, the learned counsel for the respondent,
stated fairly before us that it is not possible for
him to sustain the reasoning and approach of
the High Court in this case. His only submission
was that having regard to the age of the
respondent [37 years] and the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court may
substitute the punishment awarded to the
respondent by a lesser punishment. The
learned counsel suggested that any
punishment other than dismissal may be
imposed by this Court. We considered this
request with the care it deserves, but we
regret that we are unable to accede to it. The
learned counsel for the Bank, Shri V.R.Reddy,
Additional Solicitor General, also stated, on

4
(1996) 9 SCC 69

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10704-DB
WA No. 200027 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030005532016


instructions of the Bank, that it is not possible
for the Bank to accommodate the respondent
in its service in view of his conduct.”
10. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of State of Orissa and Others v. Bidya
5
Bhushan Mohapatra and in the case of P. D.
6
Agarwal v. State Bank of India and others ,
wherein it is held that in view of the principle of
severability of charges, the order of punishment will
not warrant interference in exercise of power of
judicial review vested with the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the
appellant has not pointed out any ground or error of
law or fact to interfere in the impugned order. In this
view of the matter, we do not find any ground to
interfere with the impugned order.

5
AIR 1963 SC 779
6
(2006) 8 SCC 779

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10704-DB
WA No. 200027 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030005532016


11. We would like to place reliance on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Airport
Authority of India v. Pradeep Kumar Banerjee
in Civil Appeal No.8414 of 2017, wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court held in paragraph-36 which reads
as follows:
“36. The law relating to the exercise of intra-
Court jurisdiction is crystallised by this Court in
the case of Management of Narendra &
Company Private Limited v. Workmen of
Narendra & Company, [(2016) 3 SCC 340]
wherein it was held as under:
"5. Once the learned Single Judge having
seen the records had come to the
conclusion that the industry was not
functioning after January 1995, there is
no justification in entering a different
finding without any further material
before the Division Bench. The Appellate
Bench ought to have noticed that the
statement of MW 3 is itself part of the
evidence before the Labour Court. Be
that as it may, in an intra-court appeal,

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10704-DB
WA No. 200027 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030005532016


on a finding of fact, unless the Appellate
Bench reaches a conclusion that the
finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it
shall not disturb the same. Merely
because another view or a better view is
possible, there should be no interference
with or disturbance of the order passed
by the Single Judge, unless both sides
agree for a fairer approach on relief."
12. Learned Single Judge has also observed in the
impugned order that the process as noticed above
would indicate that the procedure known to law has
been adopted and the principles of natural justice
has been complied. Learned counsel for the appellant
relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Dinabandhu Chakraborty (supra)
submits that there is no dispute in regard to the
proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
regard to the principles of natural justice.
Admittedly, in the instant case, the appellant has
participated in the enquiry and cross examined the

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10704-DB
WA No. 200027 of 2016


CNR: KAHC030005532016


witnesses. The appellant has not made out a ground
to show that there is a violation of principles of
natural justice.
13. Hence, in view of the above discussion, we decline to
interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, we
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. Writ appeal is dismissed .

ii. Pending IAs., do not survive for
consideration, accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE


VNR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12
Ct:pk