Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
M.NAGAPRASANNA
Gopal Bilagikar S/o Sidleppa – Appellant
Versus
Union Bank of India by its Chairman and Managing Director – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's dismissal based on misconduct. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding discrimination in penalties. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. findings of misconduct established by inquiry. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. comparison of penalties imposed on petitioner and manager. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. consideration for lesser penalty due to service length. (Para 13 , 14) |
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order of the disciplinary authority imposing a penalty of dismissal from service, the order of the appellate authority affirming the said order of dismissal and the order of the reviewing authority affirming both the orders or refusing to review the orders passed by both the authorities. All of which are under challenge. Therefore, the petitioner is dismissed from service on account of certain allegations levelled against him.
2. Heard Shri Mallikarjunswamy B.Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Narayan V.Yaji, learned counsel appearing for respondents.
3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:
The petitioner is appointed as a Clerk cum Cashier in Union Bank of India on 07.12.1989 and at the relevant point in time the petitioner was working as
Disciplinary action against employees in banking must balance serious misconduct with fair treatment principles, allowing for reconsideration of penalties based on prior service and comparative cases....
Disciplinary dismissal based on financial misconduct was set aside due to lack of fair process and the employee's prior acquittal in criminal proceedings regarding identical charges.
Distinct allegations against employee charged in the same transaction would be justified being based on a valid classification and no perversity or arbitrariness can be alleged in the process.
The court affirmed that an acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude disciplinary action if misconduct is proven in a departmental inquiry.
The court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and parity in disciplinary actions, reducing the punishment from dismissal to withholding increments.
Regulation 7(2) of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees’ Regulation, 1977 did not stipulate granting of an opportunity to represent against disagreement recorded by Disciplinary Authority.
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
