Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
VIBHU BAKHRU, CJ, C. M. JOSHI
Avipsit Rath – Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank Represented By The Md And Ceo, Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
C. M. JOSHI, J.
Being aggrieved by the order in W.P.No.14288/2023 dated 19.12.2023 by learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, the writ petitioner is before this Court in the intra-court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.
2. The appellant/party-in-person had challenged the punishment of reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay by one stage for a period of one year without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting the officer’s pension. He is also seeking to allow the appeal that he had filed against the said order, which had been dismissed by the appellate-authority by order dated 04.03.2020. He had also prayed for his reinstatement into his original post and other consequential benefits.
A. THE FACTUAL MATRIX:
3. The factual matrix that is relevant for the purpose of this appeal is as below:
a. The appellant was appointed on 04.07.2017 as a probationary officer in Junior Management Grade Scale-I and the terms of his appointment indicated that he would be on probation for a period of two years. It was stated that the respondent-Bank was empowered to terminate his services at any time during the probationary period, without ass
The court upheld the imposition of a minor penalty but set aside the termination, finding it unjust as it was based on the same grounds as the penalty, violating principles of natural justice.
If misconduct is the foundation to pass the order, then an enquiry into misconduct should be conducted and an action according to law should follow. But if it is (sic) notice, it is not incumbent upo....
Probationary employees have limited protections under Article 311, permitting non-stigmatic terminations based on suitability assessments without the full rigor of disciplinary proceedings.
Termination of a probationer based on misconduct requires a formal enquiry; failure to do so renders the termination stigmatic and punitive.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between termination simpliciter and punitive termination based on the nature of the inquiry and the purpose of the termination.
The discharge of a probationer must comply with procedural requirements, and insufficient assessment of performance leads to implied confirmation, while discharge based on unsatisfactory work isn't p....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Rule 10(A) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Classification and Recruitment) General Rules, 1967, the petitioner's services should be treat....
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
