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.

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 assigning any reasons and by giving him one month's notice in writing or by paying him one month's salary along with the emoluments in lieu of notice. After the petitioner was appointed as per the order dated 04.07.2017, he joined the services of the respondent-Bank as a probationary officer for a period of two years from 07.08.2017.

b. After completing the induction training, at Canara Bank Regional Staff Training College Orissa, he was reported to HRM Section, Circle Office, Mumbai. Thereafter, he was posted at Kolshet Branch, Thane, Mumbai and worked till 26.03.2018. Then he was transferred to Chembur Camp Branch, Mumbai.

c. On 01.03.2019, a complaint was received by the Manager at Chembur Branch stating that the appellant had intimidated and threatened the complainant and other officers of the Branch and the complaint was investigated and the investigation report was submitted by the Investigating Officer, basing on which, he was placed under suspension on 06.03.2019.

d. The appellant was issued with a show-cause notice dated 16.03.2019, in which it was alleged as below:

“1. It is reported that on 01.03.2019, you have threatened the Manager Sri. B M Parmar on account of the assignment of opening CASA accounts of the branch in the guise of that you are backed by some unions and further intimidated Sri B M Parmar, Manager that he would be falsely implicated in the charges of female harassment if Sri Parmar comes in between you and Smt Sarita, Senior Manager.

2. Further, it is reported that any communications made by you either with Manager or Senior Manager within the branch were through e-mails despite each one of the officials working in the same premises close to one another is not acceptable and it signifies that you are guided by your ego rather devoted yourself towards completing the assigned work.

3. You have sent repeated correspondences to the Branch-in-Charge via e-mails/letters, regarding clarification in branch working/job rotation and instructing Branch-in-charge to reply the same in writing. The tone of your letter to the Branch-in- charge depicts your arrogance and rude behaviour which is not acceptable.

4. It is further reported that you have insubordinated to the orders of your superiors and behaved very rudely and arrogantly.

5. You have vide your email dated 30/01/2019 addressed to the Regional Head of RO North Mumbai with a warning to make departmental enquiry against the Branch-in- charge is objectionable and you have threatened to initiate a legal remedy in the event of non receipt of the reply within a stipulated time.

6. You have impaired the working environment of the branch with your arrogance and rude behaviour against the seniors thereby hampered the smooth functioning of the branch.”

e. Thereafter, the appellant was transferred to A