Former Bank Officer Fired After Bribery Allegations Can Pursue Damages, Not Reinstatement: Karnataka HC

The plaintiff, a Senior Manager and later Regional Officer with Karnataka Bank, was dismissed following a departmental enquiry into allegations of demanding gratification from customers.

He sued for a declaration that the dismissal orders were void and for mandatory reinstatement.

His earlier writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable because the Bank was not “State”; his writ appeal was withdrawn with liberty to pursue remedies available in law.

The defendants sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, arguing that the Civil Court could not adjudicate a private contract of service.

The trial court allowed the application and rejected the plaint.

In the appeal, the plaintiff acknowledged that he had crossed the age of superannuation, making reinstatement unavailable, and sought leave to amend the plaint to claim damages instead.

Section 9 CPC gives Civil Courts jurisdiction over civil disputes unless their jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred.

A contract of personal service is generally not specifically enforceable, and reinstatement is ordinarily unavailable in a Civil Court; the recognised exceptions include certain public servants, industrial-law cases, and employees of statutory bodies where statutory obligations have been breached.

A private employee outside those exceptions may sue in a Civil Court for damages for wrongful termination, though not for reinstatement.

The Court relied on Sirsi Municipality by its President v. Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis, AIR 1973 SC 855; Karnataka Bank v. T. Gopalakrishna Rao, ILR 1994 KAR 230; and the Supreme Court’s discussion of the exceptions to the rule in the Maharashtra State Cooperative Housing Finance case, AIR 2017 SC 1647.

Section 40(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, permits a plaintiff seeking perpetual or mandatory injunction to claim damages in addition to or instead of that relief; its proviso requires the Court to allow an amendment to include a damages claim, on just terms, where none was pleaded.

The plaintiff was a managerial officer, not a workman, and the Bank was not a State or statutory body; accordingly, he had no identified remedy for reinstatement under industrial law or public-law principles.

The Court therefore distinguished the cited authorities concerning workmen and held that the Civil Court could adjudicate a claim for damages for wrongful termination.

Although the pleaded reinstatement relief was unavailable—and had become infructuous upon the plaintiff reaching superannuation—the possibility of a damages claim meant the suit was not barred in its entirety.

The Court further held that, if the plaintiff applied to amend the plaint to claim damages, the trial court should consider the application under Section 40 of the Specific Relief Act and applicable law.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the order rejecting the plaint, and remitted the matter to the trial court for adjudication on the merits.

It directed that any application to amend the plaint to seek damages be considered in accordance with law, leaving all contentions on amendment open; the parties were directed to appear before the trial court on 29 October 2026.