- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18904-DB WA No. 879 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1609 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 879 OF 2025 (S-DIS) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO. 1609 OF 2025 (S-DIS) IN WA No. 879/2025 BETWEEN: 1. THE SECRETARY, SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA CO-OPERATE BANK LTD., NO. 1627/2, PARK ROAD, RAMA MOHANPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 055. 2. THE PRESIDENT, SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA CO-OPERATE BANK LTD., NO. 1627/2, PARK ROAD, RAMA MOHANPURAM, BANGALORE-560 055. APPELLANT NO.1 & 2 ARE REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NAGARAJ D., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18904-DB WA No. 879 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1609 of 2025 AND: SRI. H.B. BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O. LATE BORAIAH, R/AT NO.63, 16TH CROSS, WEST PARK ROAD, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 055. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S B MUKKANNAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R1, VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 13.11.2025 R2 IS DELETED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN WP No.6265/2012 (S-DIS) AND AFTER PERSUAL OF THE SAME, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:27.08.2024, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.6265/2012(S-DIS) AND DISMISS THE WP WHICH SUCH COSTS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. IN WA NO. 1609/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. H.B. BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, S/O LATE BORAIAH, RESIDING AT: JOODI HOSAHALLI, YELAGALAVADI POST, KUNIGAL TALUK UTTARIDURGA HOBLI TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 130. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. S B MUKKANNAPPA., ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18904-DB WA No. 879 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1609 of 2025 AND: 1. THE SECRETARY, SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA, CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., RAMAMOHANAPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 055 2. THE PRESIDENT, SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., RAMAMOHANAPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 055. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR, OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETES (U/R-441) ARBITRATION COURT KARNATAKA STATE CO- OPERATIVE BANK FEDERATION LTD., NO. 132, 2ND FLOOR, KSCUBF BUILDING, K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 027. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3, SRI. NAGARAJ D., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT,1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:27.08.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.6256/2012 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO CONFIRMING THE FINDING OF GUILT RECORDED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ETC. THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18904-DB WA No. 879 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1609 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) These two appeals are by the employer and employee under Section 4 of Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.6265/2012. Under the impugned order, the Writ Court allowed the writ petition in part, setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority against the employee and modified the same to a minor penalty of deduction of one increment with cumulative effect and with other directions. 2. The parties are referred to as per the rankings before the Writ Court. 3. Brief factual matrix leading to filing of this writ appeal are as under: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18904-DB WA No. 879 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1609 of 2025 4. The petitioner claimed that he joined with the first respondent as a Cashier on temporary basis on consolidated pay on 01.08.1972. He was absorbed and re- designated as a Ledger Clerk in the year 1976. Later, on 01.07.1978, his service was confirmed as a Junior Assistant and was promoted as Senior Assistant in 1981 and as Assistant Accountant on 01.07.1981. However by means of an order dated 17.01.1999 he was posted as a cashier. The said order of posting the petitioner as a Cashier was the subject matter in a dispute raised by the petitioner before the competent authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 19591. 5. It is further contented by the petitioner that since he has taken the challenge to the order of posting him as a Cashier, he was placed under suspension on 31.08.2000 and followed by issuance of Articles of Charge on 30.09.2000. He further contends that his request for the documents attached to the Articles of charge was never 1 Act of 1959, for short - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18904-DB WA No. 879 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1609 of 2025 considered and the documents were never furnished and no subsistence allowance has been paid even after he was kept under suspension. 6. Respondent No.1 on 03.11.2000, appointed an Enquiry Officer, who commenced enquiry on 21.11.2000 and concluded the enquiry on 02.12.2000 i.e. within 11 days by holding three settings. On submission of report by the enquiry officer, the second show cause notice was issued on 31.12.2000, to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 19.01.2001. However, the disciplinary authority without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, dismissed him from service with effect on 21.01.2001. 7. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of dismissal raised a dispute before the respondent No.3 under Section 70 of the Act of 1959. Before respondent No.3, the petitioner examined as PW-1 and 31 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P31. Respondent No.1 examined a witness as RW-1 and marked 44 documents as Exs.R1 to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18904-DB WA No. 879 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1609 of 2025 R44. The respondent No.3 thereafter passed an order dated 29.12.2008, rejecting the dispute raised by the petitioner, which was the subject matter before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.40/2009 under Section 105 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. By means of order dated 13.12.2011, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Against these three orders, the petitioner was before the Writ Court. 8. Before the Writ Court, the petitioner has contended that there were no allegations of misappropriation against the petitioner and even though assuming the charges to be true, did not attract a major punishment of dismissal from service. He further contented that respondent No.2 did not consider the reply submitted by him to the show cause notice. He further submits that the order of dismissal was excessive and disproportionately harsh to the alleged misconduct and therefore prays that the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 be set at naught. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18904-DB WA No. 879 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1609 of 2025 9. In response to the notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared and submitted that the Writ Court should be loath in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a departmental enquiry, more particularly, when the principles of natural justice were followed and all opportunities were provided to the petitioner to establish his innocence. 10. Further submitted that the report of Enquiry Officer was furnished along with second show cause notice to the employee and received his reply and thereafter the Disciplinary Authority after verifying the reply submitted by the petitioner, and going through the Enquiry Officer report and other materials passed major punishment of removal of the petitioner from service. The Articles of Charge framed against the petitioner would clearly show that he was thoroughly negligent in exercising his duties and was not diligent. In addition to this, he unauthorizedly remained absent to duty and therefore, the Disciplinary Authority was justified in passing the order of dismissal and the same - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18904-DB WA No. 879 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1609 of 2025 cannot be termed as excessive, harsh or unreasonable and sought to dismiss the petition. 11. The Writ Court having considered the rival submissions after extracting the entire Articles of Charges running in 12, formed an opinion by reasoning the same in paragraph Nos.11 and 12 which reads as under: "11. On a careful consideration of the allegations made against the petitioner, it is evident that there were no grave allegations of misconduct or misappropriation warranting a major penalty such as dismissal from service. On the contrary, the respondent No.2 could have imposed a minor penalty to rein in the petitioner such as reducing two increments with cumulative effect or reducing one increment with cumulative effect, to discipline the petitioner. Besides this, the petitioner had a justified grievance, inasmuch as though he was promoted as Account Assistant, he was posted as a Cashier. If the petitioner was not eligible to hold the post of Account Assistant, the respondent No.2 must have taken proper steps to demote him. This could not be done by an unilateral order. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18904-DB WA No. 879 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1609 of 2025 12. It is seen that the petitioner was almost on the verge of retirement and therefore, respondent No.2 must have been more than considerate while imposing the punishment. Having regard to the fact that the Enquiry Officer has found that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved, which were based on the records maintained at the office of the respondent No.1 in regular course, the finding of the Enquiry Officer cannot be doubted. However, the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and therefore, the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from service imposed by the Disciplinary Authority / respondent No.2, which was upheld by the respondent No.3 as well as the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal deserves to be interfered with and suitably reduced." 12. On the basis of the conclusion reached, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition in part, setting aside the order of dismissal, the order passed by respondent No.3 in dispute as well as the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, modified the punishment to a minor penalty of deduction of one increment with - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18904-DB WA No. 879 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1609 of 2025 cumulative effect, and directed respondent No.1 to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner and also process all the papers for pension and gratuity in a time-bound manner. It is this order passed by the Writ Court is called in question by the employer as well as employee. 13. Heard, Sri.Nagaraj.D, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-employer and Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa, learned counsel for respondent No.1-employee. Vide order dated 13.11.2025 respondent No.2 is deleted. 14. Sri.Nagaraj.D, more or less reiterated the very same contentions raised before the Writ Court which has already been taken, considered and accordingly answered at paragraph Nos.10 and 11 by the Writ Court, which we have already extracted. 15. The Writ Court having considered the fact that the allegations made against the petitioner on careful consideration, evident that they were no grave allegations of misconduct or misappropriation warranting a major - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18904-DB WA No. 879 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1609 of 2025 penalty of dismissal from service observed that the same could have been met with a minor penalty of deducting one increment with cumulative effect. Besides this, the Writ Court has observed that the petitioner had a justified grievance in as much as though he was promoted as Account Assistant, he was posted as a Cashier and if the petitioner was not eligible to hold the post of Account Assistant, the respondent No.2 must have taken proper steps to demote him, however, not by an unilateral order. 16. Further the Writ Court observed that the petitioner was almost on the verge of retirement and therefore, respondent No.2 must have been more than considerate while imposing the major punishment. However, in view of the fact that the Enquiry Officer having found the charges framed against the petitioner were proved, based on the records maintained at the office of respondent No.1, in the regular course, held that the finding of the Enquiry Officer cannot be doubted. But considering the fact that the punishment imposed by the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18904-DB WA No. 879 of 2025 C/W WA No. 1609 of 2025 Disciplinary Authority is shockingly disproportionate, excessive and harsh to the alleged misconduct, modified the same to that of withholding one increment with cumulative effect. 17. We are completely in agreement with the order passed by the Writ Court. No case has been made out either by the employer or by the employee to take a contra view than the one considered and taken by the Writ Court. In that view of the matter both the appeals fails and are accordingly dismissed, however without any cost. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14