- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29795 WP No. 15409 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 15409 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: 1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BHARATHIYA SAHAKARA BANK, MEGHAVAT BUILDING LIMITED AGRAHARA STREET CHAMRAJNAGAR - 571 313 REP. MRS. VANITHA N.J. AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2. PRESIDENT MANAGING COMMITTEE AND DISCIPLINARY, BHARATHIYA SAHAKARA BANK, MEGHAVAT BUILDING LIMITED AGRAHARA STREET CHAMRAJNAGAR - 571 313 REP. MR. SHIVAJI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SAGAR B B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI MUTHURAJ S/O LATE NANJAIAHA BASAVAPURA GRAMA ANKANASHETTI PURA POST Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29795 WP No. 15409 of 2025 CHAMRAJNAGAR TALUK CHAMRAJNAGAR DISTRICT – 571313 2. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (R-441) DISPUTE RESOLUTION COURT KARNATAKA STATE COOPERATIVE TOWN BANK NO.132, 2ND FLOOR, KH ROAD BENGALURU – 560027 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A. DEVARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.1 SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.03.2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN Cop. APPEAL No.334/2022 MENTIONED IN ANNEXURE-E, ALLOWING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 14.03.2025 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29795 WP No. 15409 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged an order dated 14.03.2025 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Co-op. Appeal No.334/2022. 2. The respondent No.1 was appointed as a Credit Recovery cum Product Marketing Officer on 30.06.2010 on a temporary basis by the petitioner - Bank and his appointment was continued from time to time and he was granted a revised pay scale. The petitioners claimed that one of their founding members found that the conduct of the respondent No.1 was not satisfactory and that he was not exercising due diligence while discharging his duties and frequently indulged in inappropriate behaviour. The petitioners claim that on 10.12.2014, the respondent No.1 misbehaved with the management of the petitioner - Bank, used abusive and offensive language. Following that, he was placed under suspension on 10.12.2014. The petitioners claim that the respondent No.1 was in the habit of taking official documents from the Bank and making unauthorized photocopies despite - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29795 WP No. 15409 of 2025 being reprimanded by Bank’s officials from time to time. The petitioners claim that when the respondent No.1 was confronted, he threatened and abused the staff of the petitioner - Bank and his conduct became habitual. The petitioners claimed that the respondent No.1 frequently neglected his assigned duties and was attending to his personal matters during working hours. They alleged that the respondent No.1 was signing the register at the end of the day by falsely claiming that he was engaged in field work. They alleged that despite several warnings, the respondent No.1 failed to reform and continued to disrupt the functioning of the Bank. Therefore, the management of the petitioner-Bank unanimously resolved to terminate the services of the respondent No.1 and accordingly, terminated him from service in terms of an order dated 28.02.2015. The respondent No.1 raised a dispute before the respondent No.2 challenging his termination. The respondent No.2 in terms of an order dated 23.09.2022, set aside the order of termination dated 28.02.2015 issued by the petitioner No.1 herein and directed the petitioner-Bank to reinstate the services of the respondent No.1 herein along with all consequential benefits from the date of his removal. The - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29795 WP No. 15409 of 2025 petitioners then challenged the order of the respondent No.2 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), which dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners herein in terms of the impugned judgment dated 14.03.2025. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent No.1 was a temporary employee and his services were terminable at the desire of the petitioner - Bank, based upon his conduct. He contends that the conduct of the respondent No.1 was unbearable and intolerable and therefore, the management of the petitioner - Bank was compelled to terminate the services of the respondent No.1. He contends that the appointment of the respondent No.1 itself was not in accordance with law as he lacked the eligibility to be appointed on contract basis and his appointment was not in accordance with the Rules of the petitioner – Bank. Therefore, he contends that the respondent No.1 had no right to continue in employment. In support of this contention, he relied upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29795 WP No. 15409 of 2025 Rajajinagar Co-operative Bank Limited, Bangalore v. The Presiding Officer, Bangalore [2001 (6) KarLJ 36]. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 on the other hand submitted that the order issued by the petitioner No.1 - Bank terminating the services of the respondent No.1 is not a termination simplicitor but is based on the allegations of misconduct. He contends that the respondent No.1 is now aged more than 58 years and therefore, terminating the respondent No.1 based on his misconduct would amount to depriving the respondent No.1 of any employment opportunity. He, therefore, contends that the petitioner before terminating the services of the respondent No.1 should have conducted a semblance of an enquiry so as to provide an opportunity to the respondent No.1 to establish his innocence. He, therefore, contends that the respondent No.2 as well as the Tribunal took note of this and held that the termination of the respondent No.1 is not in accordance with law. He contends that for the first time, the petitioners have raised a contention that the appointment of the respondent No.1 is not in accordance with law and that he does not possess the required eligibility. He submits that the termination of the respondent No.1 is not on - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29795 WP No. 15409 of 2025 that ground and therefore, the contention urged by the petitioners cannot be taken into consideration to uphold the order of termination dated 28.02.2015 issued by the petitioner No.1. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate also supported the contention of the learned counsel for the caveator – respondent No.1. 7. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent No.1, it is clear that respondent No.1 was appointed on temporary basis by the petitioner - Bank and such an arrangement continued from the year 2010 till the year 2015 when he was terminated from service based on alleged misconduct. It is now well settled that even a temporary employee cannot be terminated on grounds of misconduct unless an opportunity is granted to the employee to establish his innocence at an enquiry conducted in accordance with the service Rules of the organization. The respondent No.2 as well as the Tribunal have adverted to this settled position of law and have held that the termination of services of the respondent No.1 by the petitioner No.1 was - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29795 WP No. 15409 of 2025 illegal and tainted and therefore, rightly set aside the order of termination. The claim of the petitioners that the respondent No.1 was even otherwise ineligible to be appointed is no ground to justify an illegal order of termination. Under the circumstances, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioners in this writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE sma List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11