Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ANU SIVARAMAN, RAJESH RAI K.
Bank Of Baroda – Appellant
Versus
A.R.T. Arasu, CODE No.10254, S/O A.G. Ramachandran – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ appeal filed against dismissal modification. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on disciplinary procedure adherence. (Para 3 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. allegations against the respondent detailed. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court's views on punishment appropriateness. (Para 7 , 12 , 14) |
| 5. case law supporting punishment discretion. (Para 9 , 11) |
| 6. balance of financial loss and misconduct. (Para 10 , 13) |
| 7. writ appeal decisions and directives. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT :
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
This Writ appeal is filed by the employer - Bank against the Order dated 13.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.41108/2010, interfering with the Order of the Disciplinary Authority and modifying the punishment of dismissal from service to that of compulsory retirement.
2. We have heard Shri S.S. Ramdas, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri. Anjandev Narayana, learned counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent.
3. The learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent had been dismissed from service after following all due procedure and after conducting the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law.
4. The Articles of Charges, which were issued to h
The court upheld the disciplinary authority's dismissal of a bank employee, asserting the seriousness of financial misconduct justifies strict penalties, emphasizing that judicial review should not s....
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to assessing procedural fairness, and courts will not re-evaluate evidence unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported.
The principle established is that disciplinary penalties must be proportionate to the misconduct, and dismissal is only justified when there is clear evidence of serious wrongdoing, particularly fina....
Judicial review in disciplinary actions is not an appeal; it ensures fairness and legality without substituting the authority's findings unless they are grossly disproportionate.
The court emphasized that judgments on penalties in disciplinary proceedings should respect the discretion of the disciplinary authority unless they are shockingly disproportionate.
The court upheld the principle of equitable treatment in disciplinary actions, allowing modification of punishments when discrepancies among co-delinquents are evident.
The court held that disciplinary authority's punishment must be proportionate to the misconduct, and failure to adhere to natural justice principles can warrant judicial intervention.
The Labour Court holds the authority to modify disciplinary punishments, especially when considering mitigating factors such as long service and employee conduct, ensuring just outcomes in disciplina....
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
