- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22017-DB WP No. 48118 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 48118 OF 2019 (L-RES) BETWEEN: THE GENERAL MANAGER CANARA BANK CIRCLE OFFICVE BANGALORE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. T.P.MUTHANNA., ADVOCATE) AND: D.H. SREENIVASA, MAJOR, R/AT NO.461, KUMAR BUILDING, ARISINAKUNTE, ADARSHNAGAR, NELAMANGALA UTTARA TALUK, NELAMANGALA - 562 123. …RESPONDENT (BY NEMICAL & PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO PASSING OF THE AWARD, DATED:04.06.2019 IN C.R.NO.140/2007 PASSED BY CGIT- CUM-LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU AND QUASH THE AWARD DATED:04.06.2019 IN C.R.NO.140/2007 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CGIT CUM LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE, ANNEXURE- 'D' TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22017-DB WP No. 48118 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present Writ Petition has been filed impugning the award dated 04.06.2019 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - Cum - Labour Court, Bengaluru1 in CR 140/2007. 2. The Central Government vide order dated 01.10.2017, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 19472, referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication. "Whether the action of the Management of Canara Bank in imposition of punishment of 1 for short, 'the CGIT' 2 for short, 'the ID Act' - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22017-DB WP No. 48118 of 2019 dismissal from the service on the workman, Shri D.H.Srinivasa, Ex-sub-Staff, Canara Bank, Levelle Road, Branch, Bangalore w.e.f. 21.06.2003 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date?" 3. The respondent workman faced a criminal case in respect of the offence punishable under Section 489-B, 489-C and 420 of IPC. For the same charges, the Management placed him under suspension and conducted a domestic inquiry in which he did not participate. 4. In substance, the allegation against the respondent was that on 24.05.2002, he introduced one Sri.Sathyanarayana to the Clerk of the Branch, persuaded him to exchange the currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination totally amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- for the currency notes of Rs.100/- and Rs.50/-. Though the official Sri.B.P.Nath advised the respondent workman to go to RBI for exchange of notes, he prevailed on him and got the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22017-DB WP No. 48118 of 2019 notes exchanged. In the evening the Cashier found that all the Rs.500/- denomination currency notes were fake. However on the same evening at the intervention of the Management of the Bank, the original currency notes of the Bank were returned. The respondent allegedly indulged in the above transaction, being lured by Sri.Sathyanarayana of a Commission of Rs.6,000/-. 5. The CGIT has found that the Inquiry Officer has not conducted the inquiry as per the requirement of law. Further in the criminal case, the respondent workman was given a clean chit, that is, he was acquitted on merit and not on technical ground. It is not in dispute that the charge in the criminal case as well as the domestic inquiry was one and the same and once the respondent workman was acquitted in the criminal case, the continuation of the inquiry or punishment imposed on the basis of the inquiry report has been held to be not in accordance with the law. The CGIT also noted that when the award came to be passed, the respondent workman had already crossed the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22017-DB WP No. 48118 of 2019 age of superannuation and in the given circumstances, the Tribunal modified the order of dismissal into termination with all monetary benefits. We do not think that the case requires any interference by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Therefore, we dismiss the Writ Petition. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4