Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
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
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M., JJ
C. Sethumadhavan S/o Madhavan Kutty Nair – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 14.08.2017 in W.P. (C) No.17930 of 2011 of the learned Single Judge. Appellant was the petitioner in the W.P. (C) and respondent was the respondent therein. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the W.P. (C).
2. While working as an officer in the cadre of Manager Grade III in the respondent Bank, the petitioner was issued with a charge sheet for the alleged failure in duty as Branch Manager at Kaloor Branch during the period 11.11.2005 to 24.05.2006. He was issued with Ext.P1 charge memo along with a statement of allegation of misconduct. He preferred Ext.P4 reply before the Inquiry officer, and in the inquiry that followed, the inquiring authority filed Ext.P5 report dated 24.04.2010 finding that out of the six charges levelled against the petitioner, three charges stood proved while three charges were not proved. Petitioner, thereafter, preferred Ext.P6 reply to the findings of the inquiring authority. However, without considering the same, the disciplinary au
The court upheld the disciplinary action against the petitioner for proven misconduct, affirming that the inquiry adhered to natural justice principles and the penalty of compulsory retirement was ju....
Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited to ensuring compliance with natural justice and legality, not re-evaluating evidence or substituting the disciplinary authority's findings.
Disciplinary proceedings against bank employees must adhere to established regulations, and decisions upheld by the appellate authority are not subject to re-evaluation by the High Court unless deeme....
The court established that an employee must be given a chance to respond to an enquiry officer's findings before a disciplinary authority makes a decision, as a matter of natural justice.
Natural justice requires meaningful opportunity for defense in disciplinary inquiries; failure to adhere justifies annulment of punitive orders.
The limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters and the need for fairness in treatment throughout the proceedings.
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