- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3112-DB WA No. 1390 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO. 1390 OF 2021 (S-R) BETWEEN: T. MOHANRAJ S/O LATE THULASIRAM AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS No.149, 2ND MAIN, 1ST FLOOR VIVEKNAGAR FURTHER EXTENSION VIVEKNAGAR BENGALURU-47 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H. NAGABHUSHANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAGENDRA NAIK R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. CANARA BANK REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR (CMD) HEAD OFFICE AT No.112 J C ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) CANARA BANK, PERSONAL WING HEAD OFFICE AT No.112 J C ROAD BENGALURU-560 002 3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3112-DB WA No. 1390 of 2021 (DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY) CANARA BANK BANGALORE METRO CIRCLE OFFICE M G ROAD, SPENCER BUILDING BENGALURU-01 4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER CANARA BANK BANGALORE METRO CIRCLE OFFICE M G ROAD, SPENCER BUILDING BENGALURU-01 5. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER CANARA BANK BANGALORE METRO CIRCLE OFFICE M G ROAD, SPENCER BUILDING BENGALURU-01 6. MANAGER AND ENQUIRY OFFICER (DISCIPLINARY ACTION CELL) BANGALORE METRO CIRCLE OFFICE M G ROAD, SPENCER BUILDING BENGALURU-01 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. UDAYA SHANKAR RAI P., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2021 IN WP No.23957/2010 (SR) AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3112-DB WA No. 1390 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19.03.2021 in W.P.No.23957/2010. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant was appointed as a Clerk in the respondent- Bank on 06.04.1983. While he was working as a Clerk at Neelasandra Branch of the Bank, he was kept under suspension w.e.f. 02.05.2008 on the complaint regarding discrepancy in cash remittance made by the customers of the Bank. It was alleged that there was misappropriation to the extent of 1,35,230/- and a charge sheet was issued to the appellant with regard to misconduct on his part in not crediting the amount remitted to the respective accounts. The appellant had submitted a reply stating that there were issues with regard to implementation of the Core Banking Solution (CBS) and that since there was - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3112-DB WA No. 1390 of 2021 heavy rush, the sub-staffs had been sent to assist the appellant and it is suspected that the said sub-staffs had probably misappropriated the amount. However, the reply was not accepted and enquiry proceedings were conducted. After being found guilty of the charges in the enquiry, the appellant was inflicted for the punishment of dismissal. 3. It is submitted that an appeal had been preferred which was also dismissed and the appellant had approached this Court. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge had also relied on the reply submitted by the appellant and concluded that the appellant had admitted the charges and he is not entitled for any sympathy. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the reliance placed on the conditional admission made by him in the reply to the charge memo was not proper and that he was entitled to be reinstated and for imposition of some lower penalty, even if the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3112-DB WA No. 1390 of 2021 admission is accepted. The learned counsel places reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Saxena Vs. State of Madhya Bharat1 in support of his contentions. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand contends that on the charge sheet being issued to the appellant alleging misconduct and misappropriation, a clear reply had been submitted stating that the appellant suspects the role of the sub-staffs and that he admits lapses on his part and he is ready and willing to make good the loss which has occurred to the Bank. It is submitted that the amount has also been remitted by the appellant to the Bank. It is contended that though the respondent had taken a specific contention that the appellant had an efficacious alternate remedy of approaching the Labour Court, since he is a workman, the appellant had argued the matter before the learned Single Judge and the matter has been considered 1 1960 SCC OnLine SC 68 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3112-DB WA No. 1390 of 2021 in detail and the judgment has been rendered. It is submitted that since no contentions have been raised as to the correctness of the procedure in conducting the enquiry, the findings in the enquiry which were based on the evidence placed before the Enquiry Officer cannot be considered by the writ Court. 6. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that a charge memo had been issued against the appellant alleging specific charges of cash shortage, irregularities, non-accounting of cash and misappropriation of funds. 7. The appellant, in the reply submitted by him has specifically stated as under; "It is my mistake that I took sub staff into confidence and I suspect their role in the missing cash, under this circumstances, I pray that my lapses may be condoned and I am willing to pay the money in installments." 8. Further, the learned Single Judge has also relied on a further reply dated 28.04.2008, which is also produced in the enquiry by the Management. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3112-DB WA No. 1390 of 2021 9. The learned Single Judge took note of the findings in the enquiry as well as the admissions made by the appellant and has considered the contentions raised in the writ petition to come to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no error in imposition of the ultimate punishment of dismissal, in view of the fact that the employer in question was a Bank and the employee was holding a position of trust as a cashier of the Bank. The contentions advanced by the appellant were also taken note of and the admissions made have also been specifically referred to. 10. Though the learned counsel for the appellant relies on the decision of the Apex Court to contend that it is only clear and unequivocal admissions that must be taken into account, we notice that the said decision was rendered in a case where the penalty was imposed only on the basis of the admissions without conducting any enquiry. In the instant case, the appellant had been put on notice of the charges against him and his reply had - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3112-DB WA No. 1390 of 2021 been taken into account and a full-fledged enquiry had been conducted against him. In the said circumstances, we are of the opinion that the findings of the learned Single Judge do not require any interference. The decisions relied on by learned counsel for the appellant are decisions where no enquiry was held and a person had been dismissed only on the basis of the admissions made by him. 11. We are of the opinion that no interference is warranted in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appeal fails and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE PN; List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5