- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42898-DB WA No. 697 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 697 OF 2025 (S-DIS) BETWEEN: K I VIDYA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O ISMALAPPA, EARLIER WORKING AS AN OFFICER IN MIDDLE MANAGEMENT GRADE SCALE-III AT STATE BANK OF INDIA, SINCE ILLEGALLY DISMISSED FROM SERVICE AND RESIDING AT C/O B. VIJAYAKUMAR, HOUSE NO.59, 6TH CROSS, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, DATTATREYANAGAR, HOSAKEREHALLI, BANGALORE-560 062 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA DESAI RAMRAO, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BANK OF INDIA A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE STATE BANK OF INDIA ACT, 1955 AT NO.65, ST.MARKS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42898-DB WA No. 697 of 2025 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF WP No. 23938/2012 (S-DIS) AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2024 PASSED IN WP No 23938/2012 (S-DIS), AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This intra-Court appeal is filed challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed in W.P.No.23938/2012 dated 04.07.2024 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. The facts-in-brief that are apposite for consideration of the case on hand, as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:- The appellant was appointed as a Clerk in the respondent-Bank, in the year 1979 and thereafter, he was promoted to higher cadres from time to time. On 01.08.2008, he was promoted to Middle Management Grade Scale-III. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42898-DB WA No. 697 of 2025 Subsequently, he was transferred to the Bhalki Branch in Bidar District and thereafter, to Humanabad Branch in Gulbarga District, which is the relevant period with regard to the present lis. 3. On 18.03.2009, the respondent issued a Show Cause Notice to the appellant alleging that, while discharging his duties as a Branch Manager, he has committed certain serious irregularities/lapses and in reply to said Show Cause Notice, on 05.05.2009, the appellant justified the transactions adverting to different appreciation letters and certificates received by him and specifically contending that he has, at no point of time, caused any loss to the Bank and a lenient view must be taken. 4. In the Show Cause Notice, there were seven allegations against the appellant and the charge sheet was issued against the appellant after four months of drafting and the appellant has denied entire charge sheet. Consequently, on 28.08.2010, enquiry proceedings have been initiated against the appellant and imputation of charges were served to the appellant. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42898-DB WA No. 697 of 2025 5. Accordingly, enquiry was held and the Disciplinary Authority, after due notice to the appellant on 08.01.2011 and the appellant's response thereto on 29.01.2011, has by the order dated 25.06.2011 recorded the finding that the charges were proved and imposed the punishment of 'Removal from Service'. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and also filed a supplementary appeal before it. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal and also the supplementary appeal filed by the appellant confirming the order passed by Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated 05.01.2012. 6. Challenging the same, the appellant preferred a Writ Petition No.23938/2012 before this court. However, the learned Single Judge, after appreciating the entire materials on record, rejected the writ petition vide its order dated 04.07.2024. Against which, the petitioner is before this Court. 7. We have heard Sri Raghavendra Desai Ramrao, learned counsel for the appellant. 8. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the issuance of Show Cause Notice and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42898-DB WA No. 697 of 2025 filing of charge sheet against the appellant is totally based on the anonymous complaint filed by an employee of the bank. Further, the charges alleged against the appellant would not amount to misconduct for the reason that the principal charges alleged against the appellant was that he was not remitting equal monthly instalment in his own housing loan account, but was remitting it by lumpsum. Further, since the appellant was taking home only 40% of the salary, he could not have been charged of misconduct under the banking rules as he was repaying the loan, out of remaining 60% salary. 9. He also contended that the allegation in the loan accounts cannot be sustainable for the reason that all those loans are secured loans and clean demand loans, for which adequate security was available with the bank. He further contended that the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority, and the learned Single Judge have not appreciated these aspects of the matter and committed an error by rejecting the plea of the appellant against his removal. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42898-DB WA No. 697 of 2025 10. We have perused the records made available before us including the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The only point that would arise for our consideration is: Whether the order passed by the learned Single Judge, upholding the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, calls for any interference by this Court? 11. As could be gathered from records, the appellant was a Manager in the respondent- Bank and removed from service by the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 67(i) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992. Though the appellant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, his appeal got dismissed by the Authority, against which he preferred the writ petition before the learned Single Judge of this court, wherein the learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition for the reasons stated as under: "16. The charges against the petitioner are based on the allegations such as deliberately delaying repayment of housing loan and certain other loans, permitting transactions with daughter and his niece in respect of credits given to them as against - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42898-DB WA No. 697 of 2025 the loans availed by them, encashment of leave, leave fare concession without actually utilizing the same and a consistent over withdrawal on the personal account over a period of two years are indicative of the sustained approach of the responsibilities to maintain integrity and honesty. The petitioner has not lead in any evidence and having not lead in any evidence with the material placed on record by the Bank, this Court cannot take any exception with the disciplinary proceedings culminating in his removal This Court is also not persuaded to opine that the removal from service is disproportionate to shock this Court's judicial conscience." 12. On careful perusal of the charges alleged against the appellant and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, it could be gathered that the show cause notice issued and charges levelled against the appellant were not only based on anonymous complaint, but were also after preliminary enquiry being conducted by the Superior Officers of the appellant by issuing notice to the appellant on 18.03.2009. Further, the Regulation 3 and 24 of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules makes it clear - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42898-DB WA No. 697 of 2025 that the employees with the Bank, for them to function effectively and properly, must observe prescribed norms and discipline since the Banking Institutions holds the faith and interest of the general public. The conduct of the Bank Employee must be in high standards and he must maintain absolute integrity and honesty. In the instant case, the petitioner failed to maintain such absolute integrity and as per the rules, the Disciplinary Authority has rightly passed the order and the learned Single Judge has dealt in detail all the aspects of the matter. 13. As regards the other contention of the appellant that the Disciplinary Authority has failed to assign the reasons while imposing punishment which is in violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, it is well settled law that if the Disciplinary Authority accepts the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and passes an order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment. 14. Such being the position, we are of the considered view that both the Authorities above have correctly passed the orders and the learned Single Judge has correctly rejected the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42898-DB WA No. 697 of 2025 appellant's petition. There are no good grounds forthcoming to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. In that view of the matter, we answer the point raised above in the "negative". Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. SD/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10