- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49521 WP No. 13371 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 13371 OF 2020 (S-RES) BETWEEN: P R VASUDEVAN S/O LATE RAMA IYER AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT 1302, E AND F BLOCK LALITHADRI ROAD 5TH CROSS, KUVEMPUNAGAR MYSORE-570023 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. X M JOSEPH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK HEAD OFFICE, NO.763, ANNA SALAI, CHENNIA-600002 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. THE GENERAL MANEGER CUM APPELLATE AUTHORITY Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49521 WP No. 13371 of 2020 INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK HEAD OFFICE NO.763 ANNA SALAI CHENNAI-600002 3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANGER CUM DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK HEAD OFFICE NO.763 ANNA SALAI CHENNAI-600002 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIVEK S., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNX-L THE ARTICLES OF CHARGE DTD 17.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-3 DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER CUM DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY AS ARBITRARY, LACKING IN VIGILANCE ANGLE AND BARRED BY LIMITATION. QUASH ANNX-N THE ORDER DTD 21.06.2018 PASSED BY THE R-3 DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER CUM DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY IMPOSING PENALTY OF REMOVAL FROM SERVICE WITHOUT ANY TERMINAL BENEFITS AS BEING ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL. QUASH THE ANNX-R THE ORDER DTD 02.08.2019 PASSED BY THE R-2 THE GENERAL MANAGER CUM APPELLATE AUTHORITY OF THE R-1 BANK AS ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL IN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49521 WP No. 13371 of 2020 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF PENALTY OF REMOVAL FROM SERVICE WITHOUT ANY TERMINAL BENEFITS.DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT ALL TERMINAL BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER. ALLOW THIS WP WITH COSTS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for the following reliefs: A Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure-L the Articles of Charge in Ref No. DA:DGM [AKL] VIG:9479:3689:2016-17 Dated 17-12-2016 issued by the Respondent No.3 Deputy General Manager cum Disciplinary Authority as arbitrary, lacking in vigilance angle and barred by limitation. B Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure-N the Order in Ref. No. DO:DA:DGM:(RA): VIG:9479 /814/2018-19 Dated 21-06-2018 passed by the Respondent No. 3, the Deputy General Manager cum Disciplinary Authority imposing penalty of" removal - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49521 WP No. 13371 of 2020 from service" without any terminal benefits as being arbitrary and illegal; C Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the Annexure-R, the Order No.DO: AA:GM(SK): VIG: 9479: 137:2019-20 dated 02-08-2019 passed by the Respondent No. 2, the General Manager-cum- Appellate Authority of the Respondent No.1 Bank as arbitrary and illegal in confirming the order of penalty of" removal from service" without any terminal benefits; D Issue a consequential writ of mandamus to direct the Respondents to grant all terminal benefits to the petitioner; E Issue any other order/direction as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case and to allow this writ petition with costs. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: 2.1. The petitioner was working in respondent No.1- Bank. The monitoring of vigilance activities, implementation of anti-corruption measures in public sector is done by the Government of India through the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49521 WP No. 13371 of 2020 Central Vigilance Commission ('CVC' for short). It is stated that, while executing the procedure, on 06.04.2004, CVC decided that, only vigilance cases of the officers of the level of Scale-V and above would be referred to the CVC for advice, unless it is a composite case involving an officer below the level of Scale-V. After excluding reference for advise of CVC for disciplinary action in the respect of the officials of public sector banks (‘PSB’ for short) below level of Scale-V, CVC further directed all PSBs to have in place “Internal Advisory Committee of three numbers not below the rank of Deputy General Manager” for scrutinising complaints received by the bank and cases arising out of inspection, audit etc., for determining the involvement of “vigilance angle” for instituting an inquiry and preservation of records relating to the determination of vigilance angle. While the petitioner was working as a Senior Manager in respondent No.1 at Kuvempunagar Branch, the Chief Regional Manager of respondent-Bank withdrew the discretionary - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49521 WP No. 13371 of 2020 power conferred upon the petitioner in sanctioning of loan facilities. Further, on 31.10.2015, the petitioner was transferred from Kuvempunagar Branch to K.R.Mohalla Branch, Mysuru. Thereafter, the Chief Regional Manager called upon the petitioner to explain certain loan facilities extended by the petitioner to customers of Madikeri and Kuvempunagara branches during the petitioner's tenure as a Senior Manager. The petitioner tendered his explanation, and as soon as after the tendering of the explanation, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Respondent No.3, being dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, decided to initiate a disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner and issued an article of charges on 17.12.2016 and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority. After receipt of enquiry report, respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner along with the enquiry report and called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted an explanation to the show-cause - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49521 WP No. 13371 of 2020 notice. The Disciplinary Authority passed an order of major penalty of removal from service of the bank with no terminal benefits. The petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 i.e., the Appellate Authority. Respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal. Hence, this petition. 3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner replied to the show-cause notice raising several grounds that the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer is not correct. Without considering the said aspect, the respondent-Bank has passed an order of penalty i.e., removal from service with no terminal benefits. He submits that, the petitioner, aggrieved by the order of penalty, preferred an appeal before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 did not assign any reasons to confirm the order of penalty. The Appellate Authority has not applied its mind while dismissing the appeal and also - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49521 WP No. 13371 of 2020 the Appellate Authority has not considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal memo. Respondent No.2, has only recorded its finding that the Appellate Authority concurs with the finding of the Disciplinary Authority and dismissed the appeal. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority, and remit the matter to the Appellate Authority to re-consider the matter afresh and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-Bank supported the impugned order and submits that, the Appellate Authority has considered all the aspects and passed the impugned order. Hence, on this ground, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49521 WP No. 13371 of 2020 7. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was working as a Senior Manager in respondent No.1-Bank, certain allegations were made against the petitioner and the Disciplinary Authority proposed to initiate a disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner; article of charges were issued; the petitioner submitted a reply to the article of charges; the Enquiry Officer was appointed and he conducted an enquiry and thereafter, submitted a report stating that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. The Disciplinary Authority issued a show-cause notice along with the enquiry report to the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the show-cause notice. The petitioner has taken several contentions in the reply notice. The Disciplinary Authority passed an order of penalty i.e., removal from service. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of penalty, preferred an appeal before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2, except recording its finding that the petitioner was given an opportunity of personal hearing and has appeared before the Enquiry Officer and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49521 WP No. 13371 of 2020 except stating that the Appellate Authority concurs with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and dismissing the appeal, has not recorded its reasons. 8. When a specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner, whether the Appellate Authority has assigned detailed reasons to uphold the order of penalty, he fairly conceded that there are no detailed reasons assigned by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority is required to re-consider the entire evidence on record. But, admittedly, the Appellate Authority has only recorded that the Appellate Authority concurs with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority had followed the principles of procedural justice in terms of The Indian Overseas Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is without application of mind. Hence, on this ground alone itself the impugned order is liable to be set aside. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49521 WP No. 13371 of 2020 9. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed-in-part; ii. The impugned order vide Annexure-R is set aside; iii. The matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority; iv. The Appellate Authority is directed to hear and assign the reasons and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; v. All the contentions of the parties are kept open; vi. Pending IAs, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE PA CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24