Back
G. NARENDAR, KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
State Bank of India, Mumbai – Appellant
Versus
Sowjanya Kumari – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Mrs. KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J.
1. These two appeals arise out of the orders of the learned Single Judge in WP No.30437 of 2014 dated 15.12.2023. The writ petitioner filed WA No.193 of 2024, against the order of the learned Single Judge in WP No.30437 of 2014, insofar as it is against her and the respondent-Bank filed WA No.169 of 2024, being aggrieved by the directions issued against it.
2. The parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition.
3. The facts of the case are the writ petitioner was employed as clerk-cum-cashier in the 1st respondent Bank, Narsapuram Branch, in the year 1977. Thereafter, she was promoted as Assistant Manager and continuing as such, till her suspension from service proceedings dated 21.08.2009. Subsequently, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging irregularities committed by her during her tenure. Thereafter, charge memo was issued framing the following charges :
(ii) You have unauthorizedly altered the amount of debits to charges a/c in
The court ruled that punishment for misconduct must be proportional to the offense, particularly when the alleged wrongful acts are minor and inadvertently committed.
The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner for gross misconduct involving misappropriation and breach of trust, validating the disciplinary process and confirming proportionality of the penalty....
Employee dismissal requires substantial evidence of misconduct; failure to provide independent proof necessitates reconsideration of disciplinary actions.
The court upheld the dismissal of a bank officer for substantial misconduct, emphasizing the standards of integrity and procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings.
The court upheld the principle that the imposition of dismissal from service as a penalty for misconduct, particularly in the context of financial institutions dealing with customer funds, may be jus....
The court upheld the disciplinary findings against the employee but modified the penalty to a minor one, emphasizing the need for proportionality in disciplinary actions.
The court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and parity in disciplinary actions, reducing the punishment from dismissal to withholding increments.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
