- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27612-DB WA No. 241 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT APPEAL NO.241 OF 2024 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: 1. TUMAKURU PATTANA SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHA JAYACHAMARAJENDRA ROAD TUMAKURU - 572101 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 2. PRESIDENT TUMAKURU PATTANA SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHA JAYACHAMARAJENDRA ROAD TUMAKURU - 572101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI NAGENDRA NAIK R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU, SECOND FLOOR, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA TUMAKURU - 572101. Digitally signed by C K LATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27612-DB WA No. 241 of 2024 2. R. MAMATHA W/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, SUPREETHI STORES HORAPET CIRCLE, TUMAKURU - 572 101. 3. D.T. KEMPAIAH RETIRED ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ENQUIRY OFFICER, C/O ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE TUMAKURU PATTANA SAHAKARA BANK LTD., J.C. ROAD, TUMAKURU - 572101. (RESPONDENT NO.3 IS DISPENSED VIDE ORDER DATED 12.02.2018 IN W.P.NO.17194/2017 (CS-RES)) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-3; SRI NAGARAJ S. JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.17194/2017 (CS-RES) AND CONSEQUENTLY, TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION NO.17194/2017 (CS-RES) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27612-DB WA No. 241 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA) 1. Impugning the award dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Tumakuru (Deputy Registrar) in DRT/Misc./01/2015-16, whereby the order of dismissal imposed on the second respondent was set aside and reinstatement with consequential benefits was directed, affirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) in Appeal No. 91/2016 by judgment dated 31.03.2017, and further confirmed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 21.12.2023 passed in Writ Petition No. 17194/2017 (CS-RES), the appellant - bank is in the present intra court appeal. 2. The short question that falls for consideration before this Court is, "whether the order passed by the learned Single Judge in declining to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Deputy Registrar - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27612-DB WA No. 241 of 2024 and the Tribunal, setting aside the order of dismissal of the second respondent on the ground that disciplinary enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice, and direction of reinstatement with back wages, warrants interference?" 3. The second respondent was employed with the appellant - bank. Disciplinary enquiry was initiated against her on allegation of misconduct and, upon conclusion of the enquiry, the Executive Committee of the appellant - bank by order dated 20.02.2015 imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. Aggrieved, the second respondent was before the Deputy Registrar. By award dated 31.03.2016, Deputy Registrar set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits while reserving liberty to the bank to proceed afresh in accordance with law. The said award was affirmed by the Tribunal in Appeal No. 91/2016 by judgment dated 31.03.2017. The challenge laid by the bank to the aforesaid orders in Writ Petition No. 17194/2017 also came to be rejected by the learned Single Judge by order dated 21.12.2023. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27612-DB WA No. 241 of 2024 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant - bank contends that adequate opportunity had been provided to the second respondent during disciplinary proceedings and that the Deputy Registrar, the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge erred in interfering with the order of dismissal. It is contended that the direction to grant consequential benefits is unsustainable. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the disciplinary enquiry stood vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice. It is contended that the request for legal assistance was not properly considered and, relevant documents were not furnished despite repeated requests, and the objections regarding bias against enquiry officer were not adequately addressed. Submits that the interference of the order of dismissal passed against the second respondent by the Deputy Commissioner as affirmed by the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge is fully justified. 6. The scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is confined to examining the fairness of the decision making process and not re-appreciating the evidence as an appellate authority. The Deputy Registrar on examination concluded that the enquiry was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27612-DB WA No. 241 of 2024 vitiated by denial of legal assistance, non-supply of relevant documents, failure to consider the employee's objections regarding bias of the enquiry officer, and lack of adequate opportunity to defend herself. The Deputy Registrar set aside the order of dismissal holding that the disciplinary authority had failed to substantiate the charges with cogent evidence and that the disciplinary proceedings were contrary to the principles of natural justice and directed reinstatement with salary and allowances from 01.07.2014, while reserving liberty to the bank to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law. 7. In the appeal preferred before the Tribunal by the bank, on re-appreciation of the entire material, the Tribunal concurred with the findings of the Deputy Registrar and held that the rejection of the employee's request for legal assistance and documents was improper and that the disciplinary action culminating in dismissal could not be sustained. The learned Single Judge found that the second respondent had, at the very inception of the enquiry proceedings, sought legal assistance and production of relevant documents. And though the Bank's Regulation 5.6 (10) of the Bank Employees Model Service Regulations (Regulations) entitles - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27612-DB WA No. 241 of 2024 an employee to seek assistance of an advocate or a co-employee in an enquiry, the request was summarily rejected without assigning reasons or considering the employee's entitlement under the Regulations. The learned Single Judge noticed that both Deputy Registrar and the Tribunal, on appreciation of the material, have rightly held that the disciplinary proceedings were not conducted in a fair manner, thereby confirming the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar and the Tribunal. The contention of the appellant - bank that adequate opportunity had been afforded to the second respondent, we are unable to accept the submissions advanced. The learned Single Judge, while exercising the judicial review, found no perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings, accordingly declined interference. Upon consideration of the entire material on record, we find that the authorities below have concurrently held that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by procedural irregularities and denial of a fair opportunity to the employee. There are no grounds warranting interference with the impugned order. 8. The contention of the appellant - bank that the direction for payment of back wages is erroneous, does not merit acceptance. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27612-DB WA No. 241 of 2024 9. So far as the submission that the bank ought to have afforded an opportunity to continue the disciplinary proceedings is concerned, it is pertinent to note that the Deputy Registrar, while setting aside the order of dismissal, has expressly reserved liberty to the appellant to initiate and proceed with the disciplinary action against the employee, if so advised in accordance with law. Since the disciplinary enquiry has been found to be vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice, it remains open to the appellant to undertake fresh disciplinary procedure from the stage at which the defect had occurred. Accordingly, no prejudice is caused to the appellant. The appeal is therefore dismissed with the aforesaid observations. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1