- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:226 WP No. 64609 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.64609 OF 2012 (S-RES) BETWEEN: PRABHULINGASWAMY S/O. ALLAMPRABHU PURANIK, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYEE, R/O. H.NO. 23, SILVER TOWN, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI. …PETITIONER (SRI PRABHULINGSWAMY S/O. ALLAMPRABHU PURANIK) (PETITIONER ADVOCATE SRI K.L.PATIL, HAS FILED MEMO OF RETIREMENT IN COURT HALL) AND: KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEENA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, BELGAUM ROAD, DHARWAD – 580 008, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI GIRISH V. BHAT, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR ANY DIRECTION QUASHING THE DECISION OF DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY DATED 30/06/2008, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ORDER OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED 23/02/2012 AND PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.01.21 12:19:20 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:226 WP No. 64609 of 2012 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 30th June 2008 imposing penalty of reduction of basic pay from Rs.22,280/- to Rs.17,120/-. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel Shri Girish V.Bhat appearing for the respondent. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: The petitioner is an employee of the respondent - Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank. Owing to certain omissions and commissions, a charge sheet is issued against the petitioner on 30.05.2008. The petitioner submits his reply to the said charge sheet on 02.06.2008. Being unsatisfied with the reply, an enquiry officer is appointed to conduct a departmental enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner, in terms of an order dated 13.06.2008. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:226 WP No. 64609 of 2012 4. The Enquiry Officer conducts the enquiry holds the petitioner guilty of the charges. The petitioner then replies to the notice issued by the Disciplinary Authority enclosing the report of the enquiry officer. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing / personal hearing at the hands of the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority then passes an order imposing the aforesaid penalty on 30.06.2008. In terms of regulations, the petitioner prefers an appeal before the Board of Directors / Appellate Authority. The appeal comes to be rejected on 23.02.2012. Challenging both the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, the petitioner is at the doors of this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner has long ago taken away the file and has filed a memo of retirement to the effect. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank by taking this Court through the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority would contend that this Court should - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:226 WP No. 64609 of 2012 not interfere with the order that is passed pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings which is conducted in strict consonance with the principles of natural justice and the extant regulations for regulating the departmental enquiry in the Bank. He would seek dismissal of the petition. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the material on record. 8. The afore narrated facts are not in dispute. The service of the petitioner in the Bank is an admitted fact and on certain omissions and commissions, charge sheet comes to be issued against the petitioner. The issue in the lis is not with regard to violation of principles of natural justice in the conduct of enquiry, but the manner in which the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order, it therefore becomes necessary to notice the order. The Disciplinary Authority imposes a penalty by following order: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:226 WP No. 64609 of 2012 “ORDER For his misconduct / irregularity of; allowing to open Current Accounts by violating norms, for allowing UCB’s on 29 occasions by violating the guidelines of the Bank, for retaining the Cheques of the customer received for collection without valid reasons in order to facilitate the customer of the branch, for sanctioning loans by exceeding the Discretionary Power / per party limit and neglecting the security norms of the Bank, Sri. Prabhulingaswamy Allamaprabhu Puranik be and is hereby awarded with the penalty of REDUCTION OF INCREMENT IN HIS TIME SCALE i.e., bringing down his present Basic pay from Rs.22,280/- to Rs.17,120/- in accordance with Regulation 38(I)(b)(ii) of Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations-2005. If he so desires, Shri P.A. Puranik, may prefer an appeal to this order to the Appellate Authority in accordance with Regulation 47, 48 and 49 of the Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations-2005.” 9. The penalty imposed is reduction of increment in his time scale which would be bringing down the present - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:226 WP No. 64609 of 2012 basic pay from Rs.22,280/- to Rs.17,120/- in terms of the regulation 38(1)(b) of the Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations. The petitioner then files an appeal against the said order. The Appellate Authority rejects the appeal by upholding the order of penalty aforequoted. The order of the Appellate Authority reads as under: "As the Chairman is the Disciplinary Authority who passed the order now appealed against, this Appeal was considered by the Board of Directors with Shri Naveen Chandra Shetty, Central Govt. Nominee as Chairperson with the following members of the Board 01 Smt. Indumati Shoo : NABARD Nominee Director 02 Shri S.R. Paramashivaiah : Central Govt. Nominee Director 03 Shri M.G. Sudhir Kini : Sponsor Banch Nominee Director 04 Shri Siddalingappa : Sponsor Banch Nominee Director 05 Shri Rabhuram Bhandary : State Govt. Nominee Director The Board of Directors after going though the Appeal submitted by the Officer, resolved to uphold the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.” 10. Challenging both these orders, the petitioner is before this Court in this subject petition. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:226 WP No. 64609 of 2012 11. The issue inter alia that falls for consideration at hands of this Court is whether the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are inconsonance with law. The order of the Disciplinary Authority is quoted hereinabove is on the basis of the enquiry conducted against the petitioner, the officer employee. The petitioner files an appeal before the Appellate Authority in terms of Regulation 47 of the aforesaid Regulations, it reads as under: “47. Right to appeal (i) An office or employee shall have right of appeal against any order passed under these Regulations which injuriously affects his interest. (ii) The appeal shall be preferred to the Appellate Authority mentioned in Regulations 48 whithin 45 days of the date of receipt of the order appealed against. The Appellate Authority shall consider the appeal and pass suitable order preferably within a period of 6 months.” - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:226 WP No. 64609 of 2012 12. Section 47 permits an officer employee shall have right of appeal against any order passed under these Regulations which affects his interest. The Appellate Authority in terms of Regulation 47(2) would consider the appeal and pass necessary orders within a period of six months. The issue is whether the Appellate Authority has considered the appeal as is necessary in law. The order of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are as quoted hereinabove, there can be no qualm about the reason so rendered by the Disciplinary Authority while imposing the penalty as it bears cogent reasons. Insofar as the order of the Appellate Authority is concerned it suffers from blatant non-application of mind as it is a one line order holding that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has not found merit with the Appellate Authority. The order cannot be in consonance with law, as the Apex Court in plethora of judgments has considered the fact that the Appellate Authority also has a duty to record reasons while passing the order since the order of the Appellate Authority is bereft of reasons quoted hereinabove. The Appellate - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:226 WP No. 64609 of 2012 Authority would now be required to reconsider the appeal so filed by the petitioner on the ground that set out in the appeal. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed in part; (ii) Challenge to the order of the Disciplinary Authority stands rejected; (iii) Order of the Appellate Authority dated 23/02/2012 is quashed; (iv) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the Appellate Authority to pass necessary orders in accordance with law bearing in mind the observations made in the course of this order. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VNP/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1