Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ASHOK S.KINAGI
Srinivas, S/O Late Venkataramane Gowda – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
ORDER :
Ashok S. Kinagi, J.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for quashing the order dated 15.06.2022 in Dispute No.RCS/CRD/KEM-8/09/2016-17 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-P.
2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:
The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant to respondent No.3-Bank. The petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation retired from service on 31.01.2015. Respondent No.6 is an employee of respondent No.5- Bank. During the tenure of his office, he had misappropriated the office funds for his personal use, which was found in the yearly interim report submitted by the Bank Officials. Pursuant to the interim report, board of respondent No.5-Bank called explanation from respondent No.6. Thereafter, respondent No.6 executed an indemnity bond on 12.01.2016 by agreeing to pay the entire misappropriated office funds. The Board of Directors of respondent No.5 and its Officials, colluding with respondent No.6 by ignoring Annexure-A, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner making some allegations regarding mis-appropriation. Further, respondent No.3 initiated a proceedings under Section 64 of the Act. A n
Procedural fairness requires that orders in surcharge proceedings be reasoned, ensuring that necessary parties are included, especially when allegations of misappropriation are involved.
Disciplinary action must align with evidence; disproportionate punishment is not permissible when actions were taken in good faith.
Employee dismissal requires substantial evidence of misconduct; failure to provide independent proof necessitates reconsideration of disciplinary actions.
Judicial review under Article 226 does not entail reappreciation of the merits of disciplinary decisions; finality of punishment orders must be respected unless clear jurisdictional errors are presen....
The appellate authority must provide a reasoned decision when rejecting an appeal in disciplinary proceedings, ensuring adherence to natural justice.
The appellate authority must provide a reasoned decision and adhere to principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings.
Point of Law : Unless punishment is shockingly/strikingly disproportionate or harsh, in normal circumstances, Court cannot interfere with the same and that too when said order of punishment has been ....
Disciplinary proceedings for employee misconduct can be maintained irrespective of delays from earlier actions, emphasizing the right to investigate allegations of financial irregularities.
The court ruled that disciplinary dismissals must adhere to natural justice and have sufficient evidence, particularly when severe penalties are imposed, as seen in cases of clerical errors.
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
