US Constitution Trumps Presidential Tariff Powers
28 Feb 2026
Non-Compliance with Court Summons Amounts to Contempt: Allahabad HC Issues Warrant Against HDFC Life Branch Head in Cheating Bail Case
02 Mar 2026
Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
N. Tukaram Naik – Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.
The petitioner challenges the punishment of Compulsory Retirement imposed on him pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings conducted with regard to the allegations in the Charge Memo dated 15.02.2013.
2. The facts of the case, precisely, as per the writ affidavit, is as follows:
The petitioner joined the respondent-BankasaClerkin1984, and subsequently obtained promotions and, as of 2010, he became a Scale III Officer. He is stated to have earned recognition for improving the performance of the Branch by achieving loan disbursal and recovery targets. It is alleged that when he worked as Branch Manager at Akulavarighanapur Branch, Warangal District, in the year 2012, he indiscriminately disbursed loans to Kauldars (Tenant Farmers), and demanded and accepted bribes to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,500/- for disbursing/crediting
Procedural fairness requires that employees facing major penalties be given reasonable opportunities to present a defense and cross-examine witnesses in disciplinary inquiries.
The failure to provide crucial documents and examine key witnesses in a departmental inquiry violates natural justice and Article 311(2) of the Constitution, warranting annulment of the imposed penal....
The court upheld the compulsory retirement of a judicial officer for proven corruption, emphasizing the integrity required in judicial service.
The appointment of an Inquiry Officer in the same scale does not necessarily vitiate the inquiry if no prejudice or injustice is demonstrated by the petitioner.
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.
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