An intra-court appellate bench should not disturb findings absent perversity.

A.V. Kulkarni, a bank officer, was compulsorily retired and directed to pay a recovery following disciplinary proceedings concerning alleged misconduct connected with fraud and misappropriation by a subordinate at his branch.

The disciplinary authority found the charges proved; the bank’s appellate authority rejected Kulkarni’s appeal on 20 July 2009.

The Single Judge dismissed his writ petition, and Kulkarni appealed, alleging denial of a fair opportunity in the enquiry and disproportionate punishment.

The Division Bench noted that he had received the enquiry report, replied to the second show-cause notice, participated in the enquiry, and cross-examined witnesses.

Under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, the Division Bench exercises intra-court appellate jurisdiction; in such an appeal, a factual finding should not be disturbed merely because another view is possible, absent perversity or other sufficient basis for interference (Management of Narendra & Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Workmen of Narendra & Company, as quoted in Airport Authority of India v. Pradeep Kumar Banerjee).

Judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 does not ordinarily permit reappreciation of disciplinary evidence, and an order of punishment may remain valid where charges are severable (State of Orissa v. Bidya Bhushan Mohapatra; P.D. Agarwal v. State Bank of India).

A claim of loss of confidence must rest on objective facts showing the employee’s position of trust, its abuse, and the resulting detriment of continued service; loss of confidence cannot be merely subjective (Kanhaiyalal Agarwal v. Factory Manager, Gwalior Sugar Company Ltd.).

The Court also relied on authority concerning misconduct and trust in bank employment (Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik), and on the limited scope of judicial interference with disciplinary findings (Central Industrial Security Force v. Abrar Ali).

The Court found no demonstrated breach of natural justice: Kulkarni participated in the enquiry, cross-examined witnesses, received the enquiry report with the second show-cause notice, and submitted a reply before the disciplinary authority decided the matter.

It treated the charges as serious and considered the appellant’s position in a bank, where trust and confidence are significant.

Applying the restricted scope of intra-court and judicial review, the Bench found no identified error of law or fact warranting interference with the disciplinary decision or the Single Judge’s order; it also rejected the natural-justice and disproportionality grounds advanced by the appellant.

The writ appeal was dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of as no longer requiring consideration.