- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26497-DB WP No. 11709 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 11709 OF 2020 (L-TER) BETWEEN: THE GENERAL MANAGER (P) CORPORATION BANK, (NOW UNION BANK OF INDIA) REGIONAL OFFICE, BENGALURU NORTH NO.1/1, GROUND FLOOR, 'JEEVAN SAMPIGE', 2ND MAIN, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003. REPRESENTED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER (P) MR.KAKUMANU NIRMALA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRADEEP S SAWKAR AND SRI. S.R. KAMALACHARAN, ADVOCATES) AND: SRI. L. JAYARAM S/O SRI R.LAKSHMINARAYAN SHASTRY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.900/1 INDIRESHA, 3RD MAIN 2ND CROSS, VIDYARANYAPURAM MYSORE - 570 004 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SR. ADVOCATE, MS. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26497-DB WP No. 11709 of 2020 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE FINAL AWARD DTD.18.2.2020 (NOTIFIED ON 3.3.2020) PASSED BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN C.R.NO.04/2006 (ANNEXURE-J) AND REJECT THE REFERENCE HOLDING THAT TH EBANK IS JUSTIFIED IN IMPOSING THE PUNISHMENT OF DISCHARGE FROM SERVICE W.E.F. 16.6.2004 ON THE RESPONDENT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING '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) This writ petition has been filed impugning the award dated 18.02.2020 (notified on 03.03.2020) passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bengaluru in C.R.No.04/2006, whereby petitioner-Bank was directed to pay the delinquent employee-respondent 80% of the back wages from 16.06.2004 till he attained the age of superannuation (for almost 13 years). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26497-DB WP No. 11709 of 2020 2. The respondent was working as Typist-cum- Clerk, who faced the disciplinary proceedings for the following charges: "Whereas you were working as Typist cum Clerk at Mysore- Vontikoppal Branch of the Bank between the period 04.07.1994 and 18.07.2000. It is reported against you as follows: That M/s Chandana Agencies, a proprietorship concern of Sri L. Narasimha Prasad, dealing in Pharmaceuticals and Steel Furniture (used in hospitals), opened a Current account No. 1799 with Rajajinagar- Bangalore Branch on 01.01.1999 with the introduction of Sri G. Arunachala Sharma, E.6083, then Officer, Inspection and Audit Division, Head Office, Mangalore. That M/s Chandana Agencies sought for certain credit facilities and the loan application dated 23.12.1998 and relevant appraisal report has been filled in by the aforesaid Sri G Arunachala Sharma. That in terms of letter dated 24.12.1998 Sri C Jayadeva Kamath, Senior Manager, then in charge of Bangalore Rajajinagar Branch has recommended the loan proposal for sanction and forwarded the said loan proposal to the then Regional Office (now redesignated as Zonal Office) Bangalore. That Sri L Narasimha Prasad proprietor of M/s Chandana Agencies is your own brother. That even though Sri G Arunachala Sharma and C Jayadeva Kamath know this fact, they have suppressed the fact from the knowledge of the Regional Office. That based upon the recommendation of the Branch, on 02.01.1999, Regional Office Bangalore, sanctioned the following limits to M/s Chandana Agencies. Cash Credit- CC (H) -Rs.20.00 lakhs - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26497-DB WP No. 11709 of 2020 Supply Bills Discounting (SBD)- Rs.10.00 lakhs That Regional Office Bangalore had also stipulated inter alia the following primary and collateral securities for both the limits. (a) Hypothecation of stock. (b) EMG of factory land and building belonging to M/s Maxima Electronics, Proprietor Sri P. Raja Pandian at No. 8, S.No. 618/2, Electrical and Electronics Industrial Estate, Hosur, Tamil Nadu, worth Rs. 70.64 lakhs. (c) Fixed assets of the firm (furniture/fixture and machineries). (d) Personal guarantee of Sri P. Reja Pandian (Net worth Rs.60.00 lakhs). That Sri C Jayadeva Kamath was on leave between the period 05.01.1999 and 10.01.1999. That on 06.01.1999, the documents pertaining to the loan account were executed by the proposed borrower and guarantor at the residence of Sri C Jayadeva Kamath, Senior Manager. That you were present along with Sri.K.N Vaidyanathan, E.3830, Officer then working at Bangalore- Rajajinagar Branch and the aforesaid Sri.G.Arunachala Sharma while the documents were being executed by the prospective borrower and guarantor. That on 07.01.1999 without ensuring compliance of the terms of sanction, the CC (H) limit for Rs.20.00 lakhs was released/ disbursed to M/s Chandana Agencies by passing Cheque No. 205552 of sanction, dated 07.01.1999 for Rs. 11,20,000/- for purchasing a Demand Draft for Rs. 4,70,000/- favouring M/s Mahalakshmi Enterprises, Mysore and a Pay Order for Rs.6,50,000/- favouring M/s Skanda Enterprises, Bangalore. That subsequently it revealed that M/s Sri Mahalakshmi Enterprises, a proprietorship concern of Smt A.C. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26497-DB WP No. 11709 of 2020 Srivani, your wife is having a Current Account No.780 at Mysore V. V. Mohalla (Vontikoppal) Branch of the Bank. That the said account was opened at the Branch on 05.01.1999 with your introduction. That the account was opened only with an intention to encash the aforesaid Demand Draft of Rs. 4,70,000/-. That there is no operation in the account after 13.04.1999 and the firm is also not in existence at present. That M/s Skanda Enterprises, a proprietorship concern of Shri K.Thyagarajan was having a current account No. 867 with Gayatri Nagar Bangalore Branch of State Bank of Mysore. That the account was opened on 7th January, 1999 with the sole purpose of encashing the pay order for Rs. 6,50,000/-. That the account was closed on 27.09.1999. That the unit is also not in existence at present. That the operations in the CC account were not satisfactory and the bill drawn by the borrower under the SBD limit is still outstanding. Both the limits have become NPA since 01.10.1999. That a legal notice dated 30.12.1999 was issued to the borrower recalling the entire dues of Rs.29.99 lakhs (CC and SBD Limit excluding interest) due to the Bank and that the Branch has filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore for recovery of Bank's dues from the borrower. It is alleged against you as follows: That while executing the aforesaid loan documents you were present at the residence of the Senior Manager. That Smt.A.C. Srivani, Proprietress of Sri Mahalakshmi enterprises is your wife. That you introduced Current Account No. 780 in the name of M/s Sri Mahalakshmi enterprises at Mysore, V.V. Mohalla (Vontikoppal) Branch to enable your brother, the borrower Sri L. Narasimha Prasad to encash the Demand Draft for Rs. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26497-DB WP No. 11709 of 2020 4,70,000/- issued by Bangalore Rajajinagar Branch. The said concern is not in existence now. That thus you colluded with the borrower to perpetrate fraud on the Bank. That thus your acts and omissions in the matter have resulted in the borrowal account becoming sticky and difficult of recovery and thereby you jeopardised interest of the Bank and exposed the Bank to a huge financial loss of Rs. 29.99 lakhs (exclusive of uncharged interest). That the aforesaid acts and omissions alleged against you, if proved, would tantamount to doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank, gross misconduct under clause 5(j) of the provisions of the memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Procedure dated 10.04.2002 applicable to you. You may offer you explanation, if any, to this letter of charge, within 10 days of its receipt. If you do not submit your explanation or deny the charges levelled against you, a written domestic enquiry will be ordered against you. The details regarding the name of the Enquiry the Presenting Officer will the intimated to course. The date and place of enquiry will be you by the Enquiry Officer. Officer and you in due intimated to The list of documents regarding the name of the enquiry officer and the presenting officer will be intimated to you in due course. The date and place of enquiry will be intimated to you by the Enquiry Officer. The list of documents by which and and the list of witnesses by whom the management proposes to substantiate the charges leveled against you and a photo copy each of the documents proposed to be relied upon, in the enquiry, are enclused. You will be given a reasonable opportunity to: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26497-DB WP No. 11709 of 2020 1. verify the documents the management wants to rely upon to substantiate the charges leveled against you; 2. cross examine the witnesses of the Management; 3. produce documents you propose to rely upon in your defence and 4. to examine your witness/es. You will be permitted to take the assistance of a representative of the Registered Trade Union of the Bank Employees of which you are a member on the date first notified for the commencement of the enquiry, to defend in the enquiry." 3. The inquiry officer after conducting the inquiry submitted the report holding that the charges were proved against the respondent. The respondent raised the industrial dispute and the Central Government vide Order No.L-12012/135/2005-IR(B-II) dated 20.01.2006 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub- Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act'), referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 18.02.2020: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26497-DB WP No. 11709 of 2020 "Whether the action of the management of Corporation Bank in passing the order of discharge from the services of the bank on the workmen Shri.L.Jayaram, Typist-cum-Clerk, Corporation Bank, Main Bank, Mysore w.e.f. 16.06.2004 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled and from which date?" 4. Preliminary issue regarding the fairness of the domestic inquiry was comprehensively decided vide order 04.09.2013 holding that the inquiry was conducted in a fair, just and proper manner. 5. No one can deny the seriousness of the imputation of charges as contained in the charge sheet mentioned herein before. The Tribunal has also recorded that during the domestic inquiry, the charges were proved against the respondent on the basis of the evidence led by the parties and the respondent's involvement in the transaction, in which his own wife and his brother were involved got proved. Despite these findings, the Tribunal has interfered with the order of punishment, on the ground that one Sri.C.Jaydeva Kamath, who was working as Manager, his punishment was modified by the High Court - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26497-DB WP No. 11709 of 2020 and therefore, the disciplinary authority must have considered the said fact and should not have imposed the punishment. 6. It has been further observed that in the criminal case, the respondent and other accused were acquitted. Therefore, the imposition of the punishment was not justified. 7. Mr.Pradeep Sawkar submitted that once the Tribunal found that the enquiry held against the respondent was just, proper and fair, and the charges were proved on the basis of the evidence, the interference with the punishment was not justified. In domestic enquiry, charges are proved on the basis of the preponderance of probabilities and not on charges being proved beyond reasonable doubt. When the Tribunal itself has held that the charges were proved on the basis of the evidence led by the bank, and the charges being serious in nature, the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26497-DB WP No. 11709 of 2020 punishment of discharge from service with all benefits and consequences. 8. On the other hand, Sri. S.S.Nagananda, learned Counsel has submitted that this Court has interfered with the punishment imposed on the Manager and the order of learned Single Judge has attained finality, inasmuch as the Bank did not challenge the order. Therefore, imposing the punishment of discharge from service on the petitioner was not justified. He has supported the findings of the Tribunal. 9. We have considered the submissions and gone through the impugned Award. 10. Once the domestic enquiry has been found to be just, fair and proper and the charges are proved on the basis of the evidence on record, for the serious charge like this in the present case, the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the punishment. The impugned award is unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26497-DB WP No. 11709 of 2020 However, considering the fact that the respondent is aged about 70 years, and he has been out of employment from 2004, though we set aside the impugned award, we direct the petitioner-bank to pay 25% of the back wages from the date i.e., 16.06.2004 till the respondent attained the age of superannuation without any interest. The said amount is to be paid within a period of four weeks from today. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is partly-allowed. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6