KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEENA BANK vs SRI. M.G GUNDLUR S/O GANGADHARAPPA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
608-DB
of 2024
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WA No. 100125 o
CNR: KAHC0200530120
024
D
IN THE HIGH
H COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
IS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026
DATED TH
PRESENT
THE HON'B
BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
THE HON'
BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
PPEAL NO.100125 OF 2024 (S-RES)
WRIT A
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA VIK
REGIONAL RURA
CONSTITUTED U
HEAD OFFICE D
REPRESENTED B
SRI. MALACHI S
KAS GRAMEENA BANK
AL BANK,
UNDER R.R.B ACT, 1976,
HARWAD,
BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
S/O. JAGADISH PUNITH.
PELLANT
…APP
(BY SMT.BHAGYASHR
AND:
SRI. MOHAN S/O
R/O. OMKAR HO
AYODHYANAGAR
BELAGAVI-5500
REE N.BIKKANNAVAR, ADVOCATE)
O. GANGADHARAPPA GUNDLUR
OUSE, NO. 4824/C/9B,
R, CIVIL HOSPITAL ROAD,
016.
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
ONDENT
…RESPO
BANGI, ADVOCATE)
(BY SRI.CHAMARAJ B
THIS WRIT
KARNATAKA HIGH C
RECORDS IN W.P.N
LEARNED SINGLE JU
THE ORDER DATED
(S-RES) PASSED BY
COURT, AS THE SAM
LAW AND CONSEQ
(S-RES) AS PRAYED
AND EQUITY; AND ET
4 OF
OR THE
OF THE
T ASIDE
88/2011
HON’BLE
APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL F
NO.65988/2011 (S-RES) ON THE FILE O
UDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT AND SET
D 17/01/2024 MADE IN W.P. NO.6598
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS H
ME BEING ILLEGAL AND NOT SUSTAINA
QUENTLY DISMISS THE W.P. NO.6598
D FOR THEREIN, IN THE INTEREST OF J
ABLE IN
88/2011
JUSTICE
TC.
- 2 -
608-DB
of 2024
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WA No. 100125 o
CNR: KAHC0200530120
024
EARING,
THIS WRIT AP
THIS DAY, JUDGMEN
PPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HE
T WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'B
BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
ORAL JUDGMENT
BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA )
HON
(PER: HON'B
The appellant
nk (‘the
t, the Karnataka Vikas Grameena Ban
n order
Bank’ for short), is
before this Court calling in question a
in Writ
dated 17.01.2024
passed by the learned Single Judge
Petition No.65988 o
of 2011.
2. Heard th
ree N.
e learned counsel Smt. Bhagyash
learned
Bikkannavar appe
aring for the appellant and the
nt.
counsel Sri. Chama
araj Bangi appearing for the responden
3. Facts enu
merated are as follows:
3.1. The re
rstwhile
espondent is appointed in the er
nk, on
Malaprabha Gram
eena Bank, a Regional Rural Ban
certain
01.08.1980. After
about 21 years of service, owing to
e issued
omissions and com
missions, a charge sheet comes to be
of not
against the respo
ondent for an alleged misconduct
ve been
accounting for cas
h of ₹60,000/-, which is said to hav
- 3 -
608-DB
of 2024
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WA No. 100125 o
CNR: KAHC0200530120
024
uct of a
received from the
hands of a customer. Upon the condu
departmental enqu
uiry pursuant to the issuance of the
charge
sheet, the respond
ent is dismissed from service by an o
order of
the Disciplinary Au
uthority. An appeal is filed against the
e order
of the Disciplinary A
Authority. The Appellate Authority set
ts aside
the order of dismis
ssal and remits the matter back to the
e hands
ry . The
y Authority for a de novo enquir
of the Disciplinary
Disciplinary Autho
ority then passes an order placin
ng the
respondent under s
suspension, to be effective from 15.02
2.2002,
the conduct of a de novo enquiry.
and further directs
3.2. The res
spondent then files Writ Petition No.14
4403 of
2002 challenging th
he order of suspension, seeking entire
e salary
for the period of su
uspension from 17.11.2001. On 01.12
2.2003,
the respondent is r
reinstated into the service of the Bank
for the
uct of the de novo enquiry . Lat
purpose of condu
ter, on
16.01.2008, the w
writ petition preferred by the respond
dent in
Writ Petition No.14
4403 of 2002 comes to be disposed of
f with a
direction to conclu
ude the enquiry within three mont
hs and
further directing pa
ayment of back wages in accordance w
with law
from 17.11.2001 t
till the date of reinstatement, that is
s, from
- 4 -
608-DB
of 2024
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WA No. 100125 o
CNR: KAHC0200530120
024
appeal
17.11.2001 to 01.1
12.2003. The Bank then prefers a writ
against the said ord
der. The writ appeal comes to be disp
osed of
on certain observat
tions.
3.3. After th
he disposal of the writ appeal, the d
de novo
enquiry directed by
y the Disciplinary Authority is conclude
ed with
the imposition of th
he penalty of reduction in time scale
by two
stages and not dis
smissal from service. An added direc
ction is
issued by the D
Disciplinary Authority that the per
riod of
suspension betwee
en 17.11.2001 and 01.12.2003 would
not be
counted for the p
urpose of service and that the resp
pondent
would not be entit
tled to any salary for the said perio
d. It is
then that another
proceeding is instituted before this C
Court in
Writ Petition No.65
538 of 2008, which comes to be dispo
osed of
with certain directio
ons, and a writ appeal against the sai
d order
also comes to be d
ismissed. The rejection of the represe
entation
of the respondent
t seeking back wages from 17.11.2
2001 to
01.12.2003 is what
t drives the respondent, for the third t
time, to
this Court in Writ P
etition No.65988 of 2011. The learned
d Single
Judge, in terms o
of the order dated 17.01.2024, allo
ws the
petition and directs
s payment of back wages in accordan
ce with
- 5 -
608-DB
of 2024
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WA No. 100125 o
CNR: KAHC0200530120
024
tion the
law. The Bank is ag
gain before this Court calling in quest
said order of the le
arned Single Judge.
4. The lea
rned counsel, Smt. Bhagyashre
ee N.
Bikkannavar, appe
earing for the appellant would vehe
emently
contend that initial
ly the penalty of dismissal from serv
ice was
imposed and there
fore, there was no warrant for consid
deration
The de
of the period of sus
spension as one on duty or otherwise.
novo enquiry was t
then directed to be conducted, and the
e result
of the de novo en
nquiry is that the period of suspen
nsion is
directed not to b
be treated as on duty for any p
purpose
whatsoever. She w
ould submit that, on the principle of n
no work
no pay, the respon
ndent would not be entitled to back wa
ages or
arrears of salary fo
or the said period. The learned counse
el would
seek to place relia
ance upon certain judgments of the
e Apex
Court to buttress h
er submission.
5. Per contra
a , the learned counsel, Sri. Chamaraj
Bangi,
appearing for the
respondent would defend the order
of the
learned Single Jud
dge, contending that till date the d
irection
issued by the learn
ned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.14
4403 of
2002 has not bee
en reversed. Therefore, the learned
Single
- 6 -
608-DB
of 2024
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WA No. 100125 o
CNR: KAHC0200530120
024
rears of
Judge, in the impu
ugned order, directs payment of arr
salary treating the
e entire period of suspension as sp
pent on
duty, contrary to w
what is directed by the Disciplinary Au
thority,
that it should be tre
eated as not spent on duty.
6. We have
given our anxious consideration
to the
submissions made
by the learned counsel for the part
ies and
perused the materi
al available on record.
7. The afore
e-narrated facts, though not in disp
pute, a
skeletal iteration w
would become imperative. The resp
pondent
being proceeded a
gainst departmentally is not in dispu
te. The
initial imposition of
f the penalty of dismissal from service
e by the
Disciplinary Author
rity is a matter of record. The Ap
ppellate
Authority, in an ap
ppeal filed by the respondent, sets as
side the
order of dismissal
and remits the matter back to the ha
ands of
thority for the purpose of a de novo en
nquiry .
the Disciplinary Aut
8. For the
purpose of the conduct of the de
e novo
enquiry , the order
r of suspension is passed with effec
ct from
15.02.2002. The re
espondent then files Writ Petition No
o.14403
of 2002, which is
s the beginning of the legal battle
of the
- 7 -
608-DB
of 2024
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WA No. 100125 o
CNR: KAHC0200530120
024
g order,
respondent. The le
earned Single Judge, by the following
disposes of the pet
ition. It reads as follows:
“ In this
a writ in the
dated 15.02.20
wages and ot
order dated 0
petitioner to d
proceedings.
writ petition the petitioner has prayed fo
or
er
ck
nature of certiorari to quash the orde
002 in so far as it relates to denial of bac
ther benefits w.e.f. 17.11.2001 and th
e
e
ry
8.03.2002 denying the permission to th
defend him by an advocate in the enquir
2. Pe
respondent- b
recruitment o
petitioner was
working as M
certain miscon
of charges we
explanation o
enquiry was h
an order of
petitioner from
penalty of di
before the Ap
appears to h
petitioner and
enquiry. Afte
respondent-Ba
15.02.2002 t
Thereafter,
communication
under suspens
etitioner joined the services o
bank as an Officer by way of direc
on 01.08.1980. From time to time th
of
ct
e
as
s promoted and in the year 2001 he wa
Middle Management Grade Scale-2. Fo
nduct committed by the petitioner, article
or
es
ce
ere issued to him on 19.04.2001. Sinc
of the petitioner was not satisfactory
held and the disciplinary authority passe
y,
d
e
of
penalty on 17.11.2001 dismissing th
m service. Aggrieved by this order o
smissal, the petitioner filed an appea
pellate Authority. The Appellate Authorit
have allowed the appeal filed by th
al
ty
e
a
e
n
r.
d remanded the matter for de-nov
er the disposal of the appeal, th
ank issued a notice to the petitioner o
to appear before the Enquiry Officer
the respondent-Bank by the
n dated 26.02.2002 kept the petitione
sion w.e.f. 15.02.2002 pending enquiry.
ir
er
3. Ag
denial of full w
ggrieved by this order of suspension an
wages, the petitioner is before this Court
d
4. He
perused the en
eard arguments on both the side an
ntire writ papers.
d
5. D
the interim st
the notice date
uring the pendency of this writ petition
ay of all further proceedings pursuant t
ed 19.04.2001 are stayed. Further, durin
n,
o
g
- 8 -
608-DB
of 2024
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WA No. 100125 o
CNR: KAHC0200530120
024
k
n
t-
of
the pendency
vide order dat
service and sin
Bank. In view
justice, it will
Bank to conc
possible and ti
petitioner. Fu
wages accordi
to the date of
fact that the e
is pending fro
complete the e
a period of th
copy of this o
petitioner to
Officer for th
specified time
of this writ petition, the respondent-Ban
ed 24.11.2003 reinstated the petitioner i
nce then he is working in the respondent
w of this development and in the ends o
be appropriate to direct the respondent
clude the enquiry as expeditiously a
ill then not to disturb the reinstatement o
t-
as
of
rther, the respondent-Bank to pay th
ng to law for the period from 17.11.200
e
1
e
er
all
reinstatement 01.12.2003. In view of th
enquiry proceedings against the petitione
om long time, the Enquiry Officer sha
enquiry as expeditiously as possible withi
hree months from the date of receipt o
n
of
rder. Further, a direction is issued to th
e
ry
extend all co-operation to the Enquir
e completion of the enquiry within th
e
as stated above.
6. Sr
respondent-Ba
permission to
defence repres
submission ma
respondent-Ba
entitled to eng
defence repres
ri. Shekar Shetty, learned counsel for th
ank submits that petitioner was give
o engage any of the co-worker as hi
e
n
is
sentative in the enquiry proceedings. Th
ade by the learned counsel appearing fo
ank is placed on record. Petitioner i
e
or
is
is
gage the services of any co-worker as hi
sentative in the enquiry proceedings.
With the
hereby dispose
e above observation, the writ petition i
ed of.”
is
9. The learn
ned Single Judge, in the course
of the
observations, had c
categorically directed the Bank to pay
y wages
to the petitioner
in accordance with law for the
period
commencing from
17.11.2001 till the date of his reinstat
tement.
It is an admitted fa
act that the petitioner came to be rei
nstated
on 01.12.2003 fo
or the purpose of conducting a de
e novo
- 9 -
608-DB
of 2024
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WA No. 100125 o
CNR: KAHC0200530120
024
s from
enquiry. Therefor
e, the period in controversy is
17.11.2001 to 01
.12.2003, spanning nearly 24 mont
ths, for
which the responde
ent seeks arrears of salary.
10. The bank
challenges the said order before the D
Division
Bench. The Divis
ion Bench in terms of its order
dated
26.10.2009 dispose
es the writ appeal by the following ord
er:
“5. W
appearing for
on record. Th
that the lear
prayer sought
to set aside
denying back
prayer of the W
any Advocate
order dated
permitted only
to defend his
learned Single
ofthe enquiry
date of receipt
We have heard the learned counse
the appellant and scrutinized the materia
e material on record would clearly show
ned Single Judge has not granted th
el
al
w
e
d
2
e
of
for in the Writ Petition and has decline
the impugned order dated 15.02.200
wages and other benefits and also th
Writ Petitioner for engaging the services o
which was rejected by the impugne
08.03.2002 and the Writ Petitioner i
y to engage the services of any co-worke
d
is
er
case before the enquiry proceeding. Th
e Judge has rightly expedited conclusio
e
n
e
within a period of three months from th
t of the order.
6. Le
submitted that
having regard
clear that the
Single Judge d
as to call for
Accordingly th
earned counsel appearing for the appellan
nt
t enquiry has already been completed an
d
is
to the above facts and circumstances it i
e impugned order passed by the learne
d
ty
does not suffer from any error or illegalit
interference in this intra Court appea
e appeal is dismissed.”
l.
11. Then com
mes the order in the de novo enquir
ry . The
order of the discipli
inary authority is as follows:
- 10 -
608-DB
of 2024
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WA No. 100125 o
CNR: KAHC0200530120
024
he
he
ad
me
“I have once ag
submissions m
connected recor
received the ca
are based on t
accounted the
succeed in his c
the same for h
innocence there
gain considered the matter in light of th
ade by the CSO and perused all th
rds afresh. EO's findings that the CSO ha
sh and that he failed to account the sam
he valid evidences on record. Having n
cash received by him, the CSO does n
contention that he had not misappropriate
his personal use. The CSO's contention
efore fails.
ot
ot
ed
of
However, the C
the past and
produced before
stated to be giv
good deeds. H
perusal of his su
record, I am inc
the considered v
awarding the p
stages in his tim
following
CSO submits that he has performed well
in
as
in support of his submissions he ha
e me various merit certificates, which we
ven to him in the past in recognition of h
He also pleads for leniency. On caref
re
his
ful
on
ubmissions and the other circumstances o
clined to view the matter leniently. I am
of
by
wo
view that the ends of justice will be met b
penalty of Reduction of basic pay by tw
me scale. I therefore proceed to pass th
he
ORDER
For the act
of Rs.60,
fraudulentl
use and o
fully descr
Sheet and
utmost inte
detrimenta
contraveni
19 read w
Grameena
Regulation
No. A.119)
reduction
Reduction
the existi
of provisio
Karnataka
Employees
ts of misconduct of not accounting the cas
,000/-received from a customer an
ly misutilising the same for his person
sh
nd
nal
ther omissions and commissions as mo
ribed vide Charge No. 1 of the Charg
re
ge
thereby failing to discharge his duties wi
egrity and honesty and acting in a mann
al to the interest to the Bank and thu
th
er
us
nd
ng the provision of Regulation No. 17 an
with Regulation 38 of the Karnataka Vika
as
ce
Bank (Officers and Employees) Servic
s 2005, Sri M G Gundlur, Officer, (Em
) be and is hereby awarded with penalty
p.
of
e.,
to a lower scale in his time scale i.e
n of his basic pay by two stages, fro
m
ms
ng Rs. 12350/- to Rs.11410/- in term
ns of Regulation No. 38 (1) (b) (ii) of th
he
Vikas Grameena Bank (Officers
s) Service Regulations 2005.
&
- 11 -
608-DB
of 2024
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WA No. 100125 o
CNR: KAHC0200530120
024
his
If he so desire
order to the App
of receipt of thi
48 and 49 of Ka
Employees) Ser
es, he may prefer an appeal against th
pellate Authority within 45 days of the da
te
7,
is order in accordance with Regulation 4
arnataka Vikas Grameena Bank (Officers
rvice Regulations, 2005.
&
It is further obs
bearing No 205/
the then Chairm
was treated to
from 15.02.200
appeal preferre
But it is observe
such the Office
Authority had
de-novo under
date of his dism
therefore direct
deemed suspen
paid subsistence
erved that in terms of directions vide lett
/IRD/KP/2002 dated 26.02.2002. issued b
man and Disciplinary Authority, the Offic
er
by
er
ect
be under deemed suspension with effe
02. i.e.. from the date of disposal of th
ed by him before the Appellate Authorit
he
ty.
ed that the enquiry into the matter and a
er will have to be treated to be Appella
as
te
ed
he
vide order dated 15.02.2002, directe
deemed suspension with effect from th
missal as per final order dated 17.11.2001
. I
t that the Officer be treated to be und
nsion with effect from 17.11.2001 and b
er
be
e allowance accordingly.
I further direct
from 17.11.200
spent on duty.”
that the period of his deemed suspensio
1.to 30.11.2003 be treated as period NO
on
OT
12. The respo
ondent thereafter submitted a represe
entation
seeking payment o
of back wages, having regard to the fa
act that
no major penalty
had been imposed upon him. Th
he said
representation, how
wever, was not considered, compell
ing the
respondent to in
nitiate a second round of litigati
ion by
approaching this C
Court in Writ Petition No.6538 of 200
08. The
learned Single Jud
ge disposed of the said writ petition
by the
following order:
- 12 -
608-DB
of 2024
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WA No. 100125 o
CNR: KAHC0200530120
024
ed
“3. A peru
01.04.2008 wo
declined the r
backwages on
payable at tha
had filed an
W.P.No.14403
that juncture
W.A.No.312/20
dismissed by
Therefore, th
communication
available to th
on record to
learned single
till the date of
the Hon’ble D
the communic
sustainable, th
sal of the impugned communication date
ould indicate that the respondent-Bank ha
as
request of the petitioner for payment
nly on the ground that the same was n
of
ot
nk
at stage inasmuch as the respondent-Ban
appeal against the order passed
/2002. Though that was the position
e, it is noticed that the appeal
008 filed by the respondent-Bank has bee
y the Division Bench on 26.10.200
he reason assigned in the impugne
n by the respondent-Bank would not b
hem at this stage. There is nothing place
in
at
in
en
9.
ed
be
ed
he
01
indicate that the direction issued by th
Judge to pay backwages from 17.11.200
f reinstatement has been interfered with b
by
er,
ivision Bench. In that view of the matte
cation dated 01.04.2008 would not b
he same is accordingly quashed.
be
4. A direct
with the dir
No.14403/200
direction relat
representation
amount shall
expeditiously a
from this date
tion is issued to the respondent to comp
rection issued by this Court in W.
ply
P.
he
he
he
2 disposed of on 16.01.2008 insofar as th
ting to backwages keeping in view th
n made by the petitioner in that regard. Th
be paid by the respondent-Bank a
as possible but not later than three month
as
hs
.”
13. This is ag
gain challenged before the Division
Bench.
The Division Bench
rejects the appeal by the following or
rder.
“The said orde
way of an app
came to be
learned single
the writ petitio
impugned ord
and other ben
with the said
er was the subject matter of challenge b
peal filed by the appellant and that appe
by
eal
dismissed with an observation that th
he
Judge has not granted the relief sought
on, where he has declined to set aside th
in
he
er dated 15.02.2002 denying backwage
nefits and, therefore, they did not interfe
es
re
nk
order. It is thereafter, the appellant-Ban
- 13 -
608-DB
of 2024
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WA No. 100125 o
CNR: KAHC0200530120
024
nd
considered th
rejected his re
dated 14.07.2
endorsement,
petition before
pending consi
appeal is filed
did not take n
Authority and
e representation of the respondent an
equest for payment of backwages, by ord
er
aid
010. It is submitted that against the sa
the respondent has preferred a w
e this court in W.P. No.65988/2011 which
rit
is
nt
ge
deration. In the meanwhile, the prese
contending that the learned single Judg
note of the order passed by the Appella
te
erred in issuing the direction.
3. We do
contention. Th
Judge in the im
context of the
in W.P. No.14
Division Bench
October 2009.
the wages a
17.11.2001 ti
amount is pay
impugned ord
months. Alrea
amount is pay
is the subject
petition, the e
be considered.
any merit in th
o not see any substance in the sa
he direction issued by the learned sing
mpugned order has to be understood in th
aid
gle
he
ge
he
order passed by the learned single Judg
4403/2002 and the order passed by th
h in Writ Appeal No.312/2008 dated 26
th
ay
om
The direction issued to the Bank is to pa
according to law for the period fro
ll date of reinstatement. If, in law, th
able in terms of the direction issued by th
der, the same shall be paid within thre
he
he
ee
no
ady, they have taken a stand that n
yable. The correctness of said endorseme
nt
rit
matter of the writ petition. It is in that w
ntitlement of workman to back-wages is
. In that view of the matter, we do not se
he appeal.
to
ee
Accordingly
appeal being
applications d
accordingly, th
y, the appeal is dismissed. In the light
of
ry
d,
dismissed, all the pending interlocuto
do not survive for consideration an
hey are rejected.
14. Thus, the
second round of litigation came to a
an end.
The Bank, howeve
er, neither disbursed the back wag
ges nor
considered the re
presentation submitted by the resp
pondent
seeking payment t
thereof. This gave rise to a third ro
ound of
litigation, culminat
ting in the impugned order passed
by the
- 14 -
608-DB
of 2024
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WA No. 100125 o
CNR: KAHC0200530120
024
serving
learned Single Judg
ge, directing payment of wages by ob
as follows:
“5. Learne
during the pe
being paid on
Rs.1,056/- aft
deductions. It
of Rs.17,076.8
one third of
subsistence al
stated above,
deducted and
is also his case
wages for the
not paid the w
ed counsel for the petitioner submits tha
at
as
eriod of suspension, the petitioner wa
nly a meager subsistence allowance o
ter deducting Rs.4,030/- as compulsor
of
ry
ry
is his case that he was drawing a salar
88/- as on the date of his suspension an
d
e
y
g
It
the said amount, which would be th
llowance was Rs.5,086/-, but as alread
out of this sum of Rs.4,030/- was bein
he was only paid a sum of Rs.1,056/-. I
e that despite the direction to pay him th
e
as
period 17.11.2001 to 1.12.2003, he wa
wages.
6. The imp
the quantum o
for the period
admitted fact
and the petitio
entitled for wa
the petitioner
Rs.17,076.88/
suffered a pu
reduced to Rs.
pugned order does not indicate what wa
as
of wages that were paid to the petitione
d 17.11.2001 to 1.12.2003. By virtue o
er
of
that the order of dismissal was set asid
on was reinstated. The petitioner would b
ages for the said period. However, claim o
e
e
of
ry
as
as
r that he would be entitled for salar
- cannot be accepted, since he ha
unishment, whereby his pay scale wa
11,410/-.
7. No state
respondent-Ba
petitioner was
Court in
unchallenged.
ement of objections have been filed by th
ank. Therefore, the assertion that th
s not paid the wages as ordered by thi
e
e
is
WP No.14403/2002 has remaine
d
8. In this
would have
petitioner calc
entitled to i
allowances fo
1.12.2003.
view of the matter, the respondent-Ban
to necessarily pay the wages to th
culated on the basic pay that he wa
k
e
as
.e. Rs.11,410/- along with admissibl
or the period from 17.11.2001 t
e
to
- 15 -
608-DB
of 2024
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WA No. 100125 o
CNR: KAHC0200530120
024
er
pt
9. The sai
within a period
of a copy of th
d amount shall be paid to the petitione
d of two months from the date of receip
his order.
10. Since t
has not been
passed by this
appropriate to
interest on the
the wages from 17.11.2001 to 1.12.200
3
er
paid to the petitioner despite an orde
s Court in WP.No.14403/2002, it would b
o direct the respondent-Bank to pay 6%
e wages for the above mentioned period.”
e
%
15. The issue
now is whether the respondent is ent
titled to
the said wages for
the said period.
16. The learne
ed counsel appearing for the appellant
t would
place considerable
e emphasis upon Regulation 48
of the
Karnataka Vikasa
Grameena Bank Officer and Emp
ployees’
Service Regulation
ns, 2010 (the ‘Regulations’ for
short).
Regulation 48 read
s as follows:
“48. T
allied matter
reatment of suspension period an
s
nd
(1) Th
imposing pena
shall be paid
allowance and
received but f
under suspens
decides otherw
have the effec
refund such su
he Competent Authority may, whi
alty, direct whether the officer or employe
ile
ee
the difference between the subsistenc
d the emoluments which he would hav
ce
ve
for such suspension or the period he wa
sion and that, if the Competent Authori
wise, no order shall be passed which sha
ct of compelling the officer or employee
ubsistence allowance.
as
ty
all
to
(2) Th
employee is un
he period during which an officer
or
ed
nder suspension shall, if he is not remove
- 16 -
608-DB
of 2024
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WA No. 100125 o
CNR: KAHC0200530120
024
nt
ay
or dismissed fr
on duty or ot
direct.”
rom the service, be treated as period spe
therwise as the Competent Authority ma
17. Regulation
n 48(2) provides that the period
during
which an officer or
employee remains under suspension
shall, if
he is not removed
or dismissed from service, be treate
ed as a
period spent on du
uty. The latter part of the provision,
, which
employs the exp
ression ‘or otherwise as the Com
mpetent
Authority may dire
ect’, cannot be read in isolation to co
nfer an
unfettered discretio
on upon the Competent Authority to tr
reat the
period of suspensio
on as not spent on duty even in cases
s where
the employee is n
ot removed or dismissed from servic
ce. The
provision, when re
ead in its entirety, mandates that
in the
absence of a pena
alty of removal or dismissal, the pe
eriod of
suspension is requi
red to be treated as a period spent on
n duty.
18. In the cas
se at hand, admittedly, no penalty of r
removal
or dismissal has be
een imposed upon the respondent. The
erefore,
the period from 1
7.11.2001 to 01.12.2003 is required
d to be
treated as a per
iod spent on duty. The question
of the
respondent's entitle
ement to wages for the said period h
has also
- 17 -
608-DB
of 2024
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WA No. 100125 o
CNR: KAHC0200530120
024
urt. The
travelled through tw
wo rounds of litigation before this Cou
orders passed ther
rein have remained undisturbed. The
e Bank,
therefore, cannot
be permitted to reopen or take a p
position
contrary to what al
ready stands concluded in the earlier
judicial
proceedings. The m
mandate flowing from Regulation 48(2
2), read
in the light of the
earlier orders of this Court, leaves n
o room
for the Bank to de
ny the respondent the consequential
service
benefits.
19. Insofar a
s the judgment relied on by the
learned
counsel appearing
for the petitioner, there can be no
qualm
about the principle
es laid down by the Apex Court in
n those
cases. As those cas
ses were rendered on circumstances t
that are
altogether differen
nt. Owing to the peculiarity of the
e facts
obtaining the case
at hand, there is no warrant of inter
ference
despite the judgme
ents quoted by the learned counsel ap
pearing
for the appellants.
20. Had the d
disciplinary authority imposed the pen
nalty of
dismissal from s
service, even in the second rou
und of
proceedings, the m
matter would have stood on an alto
ogether
different footing.
That, however, is not the circum
mstance
- 18 -
608-DB
of 2024
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17
WA No. 100125 o
CNR: KAHC0200530120
024
r orders
obtaining in the ca
se at hand. In the light of the earlier
passed by this Cou
urt and the mandate flowing from Reg
gulation
48(2) of the Regu
ulations, the order passed by the
learned
Single Judge does
not call for interference. The appeal
, being
devoid of merit, sta
ands rejected.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE
PMP para Nos.1 to 6
RSH para 7 onwards
CT:VH - List No.: 1 S
Sl No.: 23