1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI

WRIT PETITION NO.30967/2016 (L-RES)

BETWEEN:

MR. G. SRIDHAR,

S/O P. GOVINDRAJ,

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

R/O NO.50, 3^RD MAIN ROAD,

4^TH CROSS, VANNERPET LAYOUT,

VIVEK NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 047

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI. KARTHIK .C., FOR SRI. NISHANTH A.V., ADVOCATES)

AND:

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,

ANEKAL BRANCH, NO.1,

NARASIMHA RAJA ROAD,

ANEKAL, BENGALURU - 560 106

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. J.D. RAMAKRISHNA RAO,

SRI. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADVOCATES)

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND

ETC.,

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B

GROUP THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE

THE FOLLOWING:-

2

ORDER

In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the

following reliefs:-

(i) Call for records.

(ii)Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any

other writ setting aside the award dated

04.03.2013 passed by the Tribunal C.R.No.

24/2006 vide Annexure-B.

(iii)Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any

other writ setting aside the order dated

02.12.2003 passed by the Disciplinary Authority

vide Annexure ‘A’.

(iv)To direct the reinstatement of the petitioner to

the services and order for continuity of service.

(v)Grant such other relief/s, grand such other

order/s, as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, in the

facts and circumstances of the case, in the

interest of justice.

2.

One of the issue in the present petition is relating to

legality of furnishing common Enquiry Officer’s report pursuant

to two separate charge sheets. In this regard on 25.03.2021,

this Court passed the following order:-

“Respondent/State

Bank

of

Mysore

is

hereby directed to file an affidavit as to "Whether

two separate charge sheets could be clubbed and

single inquiry can be conducted and penalty can

be imposed or not?" since, in the present matter,

petitioner was charge sheeted on 21.01.2003 for

remaining absent unauthorisedly for a period of

59 days and misappropriation of Rs.94,000/-.

3

Further, within a period of four months once

again he has been charge sheeted on 11.04.2003

for alleged misappropriation of Rs.20,000/-. In

this backdrop, single inquiry has been held in

respect of charge sheet dated 22.01.2003 and

11.03.2003. On this point, concerned officer is

hereby directed to file an affidavit with reference

to any statutory provision whether disciplinary

authority can initiate single inquiry in respect of

two different dates of charge sheets.

Re-list this matter on 09.04.2021.”

3.

Respondent-Bank has filed affidavit in which it is

stated that there is no provision in respect of two separate

charge sheets could be clubbed and single inquiry can be

conducted and penalty can be imposed.

4.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submitted

that even though common report in respect of two separate

charge sheets are prepared by the Enquiry Officer. However,

separate inquiry has been held by the Enquiry Officer. Therefore,

there is no infirmity.

5.

Perusal of the affidavit dated 07.06.2021 pursuant to

the order dated 25.03.2021, the respondent-Bank has admitted

that there is no provision for clubbing two separate charge

sheets and submission of consolidated enquiry report and

4

imposition of penalty. In view of these factual and legal aspects,

petitioner has made out prima facie case to interfere with

impugned order. Hence, the following:-

ORDER

a)

Award

dated

04.03.2013

in

C.R.No.24/2006

passed

by

the

Central

Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court

is set aside.

b)

Writ petition stands allowed reserving

liberty to the respondent-Bank to proceed from the

defective stage and conclude the disciplinary

proceedings against the petitioner within a period

of six months from the date of