- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28670-DB WP No. 1480 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH 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. 1480 OF 2022 (L-RES) BETWEEN: STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (HR), LOCAL HEAD OFFICE ST. MARKS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. EARLIER IN INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR STATE BANK OF INDIA, ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX, POST BOX NO.34 POOJARPURAM, TRIVANDRUM - 695 012. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA G GAYATRI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. (a). SRI. B.R. BALAJI, S/O SRI. B. VENUGOPAL RAJ, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI, W/O LATE SRI. B.R. BALAJI, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28670-DB WP No. 1480 of 2022 (b). MS. BHAVANI RAJ, D/O LATE SRI. B.R.BALAJI, (c). SRI. SUMAN GANESH RAO, S/O LATE SRI. B.R. BALAJI, ALL ARE RESIDING AT: NO.498/B, SRI KANIPAKAM KRUPA, 6TH MAIN, KUVEMPU NAGAR, VIJINAPURA, BANGARPET - 560 016. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.D. KUTTAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R1(a-c)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ORDER DATED:03.03.2020 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT IN CR REFERENCE No.02/2007 AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:03.03.2020 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT IN CR REFERENCE No.02/2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR. 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28670-DB WP No. 1480 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present writ petition has been filed by the State Bank of India impugning the award dated 03.03.2020 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court1 in CR.No.02/2007. 2. Heard Sri.Shreedhar G.Bidre, learned counsel for Sri.Raghavendra G.Gayatri, learned counsel appearing for petitioner-Bank and Sri.B.D.Kuttappa, learned counsel for respondent No.1(a) to (c). 3. Late Mr.B.R.Balaji, was employed as Peon in the petitioner-Bank. He faced domestic inquiry for the following charges: "It has been reported against you that you have committed certain serious acts of misconduct, detailed hereunder, rendering you liable for disciplinary action under the purview of gross misconduct, in terms of the provisions 5(j), and minor misconduct in terms of the provisions 7 (i) of the Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action Procedure for workmen dated 10th April 2002. The following charges are levelled against you. 1 "CGIT for short" - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28670-DB WP No. 1480 of 2022 1. You have introduced a Gold Loan 99021 for Rs. 54,000/ and the same was disbursed to Sri. B.S Raghava Raju on 26.12.2002. The ornaments were not appraised on the day of disbursal of the loan. On subsequent appraisal, it was found that the ornaments were spurious and the borrower did not turn up to repay the loan. You had thereby connived with an outsider to commit a fraud on the Bank by introducing him to the Branch to avail the loan pledging spurious gold ornaments. 2. You have introduced one Savings Bank account No. 6855 in the name of Sri.N.Rangaswamy & or Smt Sulochana with either or survivor clause and the same was opened on 17.04.2003. At the time of introducing this account you had told that you knew the depositors very well as they are residing near your house and Sri Rangaswamy is working as a conductor in BMTC. On 16.05.2003, Sri.N Rangaswamy came to the branch to deposit a cheque for Rs. 1,16,980/- issued by BMTC in his favour You did the needful like filling up the Challan etc, and told the depositor that it would take 2 days to get the amount collected. The depositors wanted to draw a sum of Rs.5,000/- on the same day from the account and he entrusted you with a blank withdrawal slip duly signed by him for this purpose and at about 4 pm, at your request, the Head Cashier had paid Rs 5,000/- to the depositor You had arranged to withdrawal Rs,60,000/-from the account of Shri. Rangaswamy for your use, utilizing the blank, signed, withdrawal slip filled up by you for the amount 3. On 19.05 03, Smt. Sulochana informed you, her requirement of money and sent another withdrawal form through her son duly signed by her This was handed over by her son to you. You gave only Rs.6,000/- to the son and although you had filled up the withdrawal slip for Rs.50,000/- and managed to withdraw the amount from SB Account No.6855 for your use. 4.Based on the complaint given to the police by the depositors at Ramoorthy Nagar police station, police had taken you to the station and conducted enquiry You had arranged repayment of the amount misappropriated by you by payment of Rs.60,000/- in cash at about 10.30 p.m on 31.05.2003 along with a cheque dated 15.06.2003 for Rs. 40,000/- 5. You are in the habit of issuing cheques drawn on your account to various parties without keeping sufficient balance in the account to honour the same The following cheques issued - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28670-DB WP No. 1480 of 2022 by you were returned for want of funds in your account You have issued a cheque no.29313 dated 01.06.03 for Rs. 10,000/- to United Telelink (our customer) which was returned on 19.06.03 Other Cheques returned are- Cheque no. Date Favouring Amount Rs Date of return 38909 28.06.03 A/c no. 548172 of Vysya bank 2,000 10.07.2003 38184 22.07.03 Akshaya finance 1,000 24.07.2003 28196 10.07.03 SCB CARD 2,000 -do- 26340 10.07.03 Reliance capital Ltd. 1,800 25.07.2003 38903 22.06.2003 G. Nagraj 3,000 25.06.03 29237 21.06.03 Swadeshi Oushadea 850 26.06.03 28332 15.06.03 N.S. Shoba 1,500 26.06.2003 The above acts/misconducts on your part are in contravention of the service conditions covering Award staff under the Bipartite Settlement as also against various extant instructions of the Bank, warranting initiation of disciplinary proceedings against you. You are hereby called upon to submit your written statement of defence, if any, within 15 days of receipt of this chargesheet. If we fail to receive your explanations/reply within the stipulated time, it will be presumed that you have no explanations to offer and further proceedings, as may deemed fit, would follow. Meanwhile, please return the duplicate hereof duly signed and dated in token of your having received the Original." - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28670-DB WP No. 1480 of 2022 4. The inquiry officer found the charges proved against the said deceased workman and the competent authority of the Bank inflicted the punishment of discharge from service with effect from 12.11.2024. The workman preferred appeal against the order of punishment inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority, however, Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. 5. The deceased workman raised the industrial dispute vide order dated 15.12.2006 in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section-2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 19472, the Central Governmnent referred to the following dispute: "Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Travancore in imposing the punishment of discharge from the services on Sh. B.R.Balaji, Duftery- cum-Cash Peon, Service Branch, State Bank of Travancore, Bangalore w.e.f 12.11.2004 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date?" 2 "the ID Act for short" - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28670-DB WP No. 1480 of 2022 6. During the pendency of proceedings before the CGIT, the workman died and his legal heirs were brought on record. 7. The CGIT has set aside the order of punishment and reference was accepted and the Bank has been directed to release 100% of the backwages of the workman from 12.11.2004 till his superannuation on 04.10.2015 along with terminal benefits, in favour of his wife, daughter and son in apportionment as mentioned in the impugned order. 8. The CGIT had framed a preliminary issue in respect of the validity of the domestic inquiry. The said issue went against the Management. Thereafter the Bank adduced the evidence by examining five witnesses. By the time the matter reached to the stage of adducing the evidence by the workman, he expired and therefore, no rebuttal evidence could be adduced against the evidence led by the Bank in support of the charges. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28670-DB WP No. 1480 of 2022 9. We have gone through the charges which are serious in nature. The charges are based on the documentary evidence. However, as the workman died during the pendency of the proceedings, the rebuttal evidence could not be brought on record. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the ambit of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except we modify the order of backwages from 100% to 30% to be paid within a period of four weeks from today. The terminal benefits as directed by the CGIT are also to be paid within a period of four weeks. 11. We are declining to grant the interest on the backwages, only because of the fact that the 17-B wages have been paid to the workman while he was alive. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28670-DB WP No. 1480 of 2022 12. With the aforesaid modification, we dispose of this writ petition. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20