Kerala HC Issues Notice to Digi Yatra Foundation in PIL Seeking Strict Compliance with DPDP Act 2023 for Airport Passenger Data: High Court of Kerala
07 Mar 2026
Appointment to Higher Post on Compassionate Grounds Not a Matter of Right: J&K&L High Court
07 Mar 2026
Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
CJI Kant: Action Needed for More Women Judges
10 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
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
Headnote: Read headnote
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.
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 upheld the principle of equitable treatment in disciplinary actions, allowing modification of punishments when discrepancies among co-delinquents are evident.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.
The court established that failure to provide essential documents in disciplinary proceedings violates natural justice, necessitating a review of the imposed punishment.
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
Listen Article