# Smt. Shiv Kumari v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 178
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-11
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 47749 of 2016
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-shiv-kumari-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53723
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

C.S.C., Nisheeth Yadav, Sudarshan Singh

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether a contractual appointee engaged under
Kasturba Gandhi Awasiya Balika Vidyalaya
(Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan) has any vested right to
seek renewal/continuation of service after expiry
of the contractual term, and whether nonrenewal can be challenged on the ground of
arbitrariness or violation of Article 14.

HEADNOTE
Service Law - Contractual Appointment - No
Right to Renewal - Contract ends by efflux of
time - Legitimate expectation not applicable -
Renewal is discretion of employer - No vested
or fundamental right to seek continuation -
Petition dismissed.
Held :
Appointment of the petitioner was made for one
session which was to be renewed every year on
8 All. Smt. Shiv Kumari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
179
the basis of her work and conduct. It is a settled
law that a contractual appointee holds no
vested
right
to
seek
renewal
or
regularization after expiry of the term. Once
the
contractual
period
expires,
the
appointment automatically comes to an end,
and the employee cannot claim extension as
a matter of right. A contractual appointee
has no legal or vested right to seek renewal
or continuation unless the contract itself
provides for it. The principle of legitimate
expectation does not apply to contractual
appointments unless there is a clear promise
of
renewal
in
the
contract.
Petition
dismissed. (Paras 14-20) (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Director, Institute of Management Development
v. Pushpa Srivastava, (1992) 4 SCC 33; State of
Haryana v. Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 118; State
of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, (1991) 1 SCC
691; Karnataka State Private College Stop-Gap
Lecturers Assn. v. State of Karnataka, (1992)
Supp (2) SCC 29

List of Acts
Constitution of India

List of Keywords
Contractual Appointment; No Vested Right;
Efflux
of
Time;
Non-renewal;
Legitimate
Expectation; Article 14; Renewal Discretion;
Sarva
Shiksha
Abhiyan;
Kasturba
Gandhi
Awasiya Balika Vidyalaya; Contract Terms.

CASE ARISING FROM
Order dated 13.07.2016 passed by District Basic
Shiksha Adhikari, Varanasi

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Girjesh Mishra; Pradeep
Kumar; Rajesh Kumar
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.; Nisheeth
Yadav; Sudarshan Singh

## Text

178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
being finalized qua earlier advertisement,
the status quo as to qualification as was
then existing, should not be changed.

24. Thus, argument advanced by
learned Senior Advocate in support of
above question is to be rejected only. I find
that the Government has clarified its
position regarding equivalence vide letter
dated 20.10.2025 in terms of 2016 selection
which is quite apparent vide clause 4 which
is reproduced hereinabove.

25. It is true that rules of the game
cannot be changed once the advertisement
has given selection process effect to and
there may be circumstances where many
candidates
may
be
possessing
such
qualification may not have applied but in
my considered view as I have already held
in the judgment that a clarificatory stand by
the State Government can always be taken
during continuance of selection process.
Since it lies in the domain of the State
Government
to
clarify
its
position
regarding equivalence of qualification,
more especially when the rules and the
advertisement did provide for equivalent
qualification to be applicable, I do not see
anything wrong or otherwise illegal if this
clarification
issued
by
the
State
Government is made applicable to the
selection underway/ stage of preparation of
final select list.

26. In view of the above, the second
question also stands answered in favour of
the petitioner.

27. In view of the above, writ petition
succeeds and is accordingly allowed.

28. Writ of mandamus is issued to the
U.P. State Public Service Commission to
treat petitioner's candidature on merit
considering his PGDCA certificate as
equivalent to the 'O' level certificate
required under the advertisement and under
the relevant service rules for the post of
ARO (Accounts) in respect of the selection
pursuant
to
the
advertisement
dated
19.07.2016.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 178
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 47749 of 2016

Smt. Shiv Kumari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Girjesh Mishra, Pradeep Kumar, Rajesh
Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Nisheeth Yadav, Sudarshan Singh

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether a contractual appointee engaged under
Kasturba Gandhi Awasiya Balika Vidyalaya
(Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan) has any vested right to
seek renewal/continuation of service after expiry
of the contractual term, and whether nonrenewal can be challenged on the ground of
arbitrariness or violation of Article 14.

HEADNOTE
Service Law - Contractual Appointment - No
Right to Renewal - Contract ends by efflux of
time - Legitimate expectation not applicable -
Renewal is discretion of employer - No vested
or fundamental right to seek continuation -
Petition dismissed.
Held :
Appointment of the petitioner was made for one
session which was to be renewed every year on
8 All. Smt. Shiv Kumari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
179
the basis of her work and conduct. It is a settled
law that a contractual appointee holds no
vested
right
to
seek
renewal
or
regularization after expiry of the term. Once
the
contractual
period
expires,
the
appointment automatically comes to an end,
and the employee cannot claim extension as
a matter of right. A contractual appointee
has no legal or vested right to seek renewal
or continuation unless the contract itself
provides for it. The principle of legitimate
expectation does not apply to contractual
appointments unless there is a clear promise
of
renewal
in
the
contract.
Petition
dismissed. (Paras 14-20) (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Director, Institute of Management Development
v. Pushpa Srivastava, (1992) 4 SCC 33; State of
Haryana v. Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 118; State
of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, (1991) 1 SCC
691; Karnataka State Private College Stop-Gap
Lecturers Assn. v. State of Karnataka, (1992)
Supp (2) SCC 29

List of Acts
Constitution of India

List of Keywords
Contractual Appointment; No Vested Right;
Efflux
of
Time;
Non-renewal;
Legitimate
Expectation; Article 14; Renewal Discretion;
Sarva
Shiksha
Abhiyan;
Kasturba
Gandhi
Awasiya Balika Vidyalaya; Contract Terms.

CASE ARISING FROM
Order dated 13.07.2016 passed by District Basic
Shiksha Adhikari, Varanasi

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Girjesh Mishra; Pradeep
Kumar; Rajesh Kumar
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.; Nisheeth
Yadav; Sudarshan Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs.Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner
and Mr. Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned
Standing Counsel for State respondents.

2. The present petition has been filed
on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of
the impugned order dated 13.07.2016
passed by the District Basic Shiksha
Adhikari, Varanasi with a prayer that the
petitioner may be permitted to continue to
the post of Hindi/Sanskrit Teacher at
Kasturba
Gandhi
Awasiya
Balika
Vidyalaya,
Bhikaripur
Arazi
Line,
Varanasi, and be paid the honorarium from
June 2016 with a further prayer to decide
the representation of the petitioner dated
21.07.2016.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner applied for the
post of part-time teacher on contractual
basis for teaching in Institution namely,
Kasturba
Gandhi
Awasiya
Balika
Vidyalaya,
Bhikaripur
Arazi
Line,
Varanasi, which is run under the Sarva
Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme. Pursuant to the
advertisement, dated 06.09.2008, after
facing interview on 09.11.2008, she was
appointed to teach Hindi/Sanskrit in the
said institution. The aforesaid fact is
evident from the selection list, dated
31.12.2008.

4. He further submits that the
petitioner's
contractual
services
were
renewed up to the year 2015-2016 by order
dated 15.07.2015 and as she belongs to
scheduled caste category, therefore, she
was appointed under the said category,
however, she was being harassed by the
other staff members of the said institution.
He next submits that she moved a
representation
before
Senior
Superintendent of Police, Varanasi on
25.11.2014
and
before
the
District
Magistrate on 23.08.2010 but nothing was
done on the aforesaid complaints and
harassment of the petitioner continued after
which she again moved a representation
180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
before District Basic Education Officer,
Varanasi, in the year 2016.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the impugned order has been
passed in an illegal and arbitrary manner on
the ground that the work and conduct of the
petitioner was not satisfactory and two
teachers were teaching Hindi/Sanskrit in
the said institution. He further submits that
the petitioner, belonging to scheduled caste
category, was being harassed by the other
staff members, therefore, the complaints
were made on behalf of the petitioner,
however, on being annoyed by her
complaints, the impugned order, dated
13.07.2016 has been passed without giving
any opportunity of hearing to her, prior to
passing of the impugned order.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that though the petitioner had
worked satisfactorily and the period of the
other contractual employees have been
extended/renewed, therefore, she is also
entitled for renewal. He further submits that
non renewal of the contractual appointment
amounts to arbitrariness and violation of
Article 14 of Constitution of India.
Therefore, the impugned order may be
quashed.

7. Learned Standing Counsel submits
that the appointment of the petitioner was
purely on contractual basis and no
documents have been annexed to show
that her services were renewed for the
period from 2008 till 2015. As regards
the complaint, the same has not been
received in the office of respondents, as it
only bears signatures of the petitioner, as
well as the same has not been sent
through registered post and has been filed
in the petition for the sake of making a
counter claim.

8. He further submits that no relief can
be granted to the petitioner, as prayed.
Placing certain facts, the counsel submits
that under the scheme of Sarva Shiksha
Abhiyaan in the development area Arazi
Line, District Varanasi, Institution in the
name of Kasturba Gandhi Avasiya Balika
Vidyalaya, Arazi Line (hereinafter referred
to
as
Institution)
is
instituted
and
maintained. In the aforesaid institution, the
petitioner as well as one Smt. Sarita Arya
were placed as full time teachers in the
subjects
of
Hindi/Sanskrit.
The
appointments were made in view of the
provisions of the Government Order, dated
30.06.2015
wherein
it
was
clearly
mentioned that one teacher for the subject
Hindi/Sanskrit was to be appointed. On
account of the aforesaid fact, there being
two teachers, the petitioner as well one
Smt. Sarita Arya who were teaching
Hindi/Sanskrit in the institution, it was
practically difficult to appoint a teacher for
the post of sports and physical education.

9. He further contends that in view of
Government Order dated 30.06.2015, there
is a provision for evaluating the work and
conduct of staff/employee who are working
in the institution. Accordingly, the work of
the Block Education Officer and Warden is
to be evaluated by District Basic Education
Officer and that of other employees by the
Warden. In respect of the staff of the
institution the work and conduct were
evaluated by the Block Education officer
and by one institution known as Shiksha
Prasarni Samiti, Sikhdi, Ghazipur, wherein
the work and conduct of the petitioner was
not up to the mark, on account of which the
District Level Committee did not renew the
contract of the petitioner and rejected the
same. Several complaints were received in
the
institution
mentioning
that
the
petitioner is a lady of ill temperament and
8 All. Smt. Shiv Kumari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
181
she enters into fight with her colleagues.
Though the aforesaid complaints were not
looked into by the respondents but have
been mentioned to show the conduct of the
petitioner.

10. He further contends that one Smt.
Sarita Arya who was also working as
teacher of Hindi/Sanskrit on contractual
basis in terms of the relevant Government
order, her renewal was not done in the year
2010, therefore, she filed writ petition
pursuant to which her contract has been
renewed. Her appointment was made as full
time teacher, as is evident from her
appointment letter, which has not been
disputed
by
the
petitioner.
The
continuation of respondent no. 6 Smt.
Sarita Arya was in the light of guidelines
issued by the office of State Project
Department and after due consideration
of her work and conduct the contract was
renewed. The petitioner has placed totally
misconceived facts before this Court to
seek renewal of her appointment as
teacher in the scheme which is governed
by
the
Government
Order
dated
30.06.2015. Even otherwise, the post is
contractual in nature, therefore, the
petitioner cannot claim any right for
appointment or renewal in violation of
the conditions, as mentioned in the
Government Order dated 30.06.2015
wherein the terms and conditions of the
contract
have
been
mentioned
as
follows:-

"सेिा अनुबन्ि

शैक्षक्षक सत्र में कस्तूरबा िांिी
बाभलका विद्यालय में कायगरत शैक्षखणक एिं
भशक्षणेत्तर कभमगयों का सेिा अनुबन्ि 11 माह
29 हदन के भलए क्रकया जायेिा। तात्पयग यह है
क्रक प्रतत िषग नया सेिा अनुबन्ि क्रकया जायेिा।

कायगरत
भशक्षकों/भशक्षणेत्तर
कमगिाररयों के कायग एिं व्यिहार का िावषगक
मूलयांकन िािगन द्िारा क्रकया जायेिा तथा
िािगन के कायग एिं आिरण का िावषगक
मूलयांकन जनपदीय संिालन सभमतत के
सदस्य सगिि द्िारा क्रकया जायेिा। स्िंयसेिी
संस्था/महहला
समाख्या
द्िारा
संिाभलत
विद्यालयों में कायगरत िािगन के कायग एिं
आिरण का िावषगक मूलयांकन संस्था के
अगिकृत पदागिकारी द्िारा क्रकया जायेिा एिं
आख्या सदस्य सगिि, जनपदीय ियन सभमतत
के माध्यम से ण्जलागिकारी के अनुमोदनाथग
प्रस्तुत की जायेिी।

यहद कायगरत िािगन / भशक्षकों/
भशक्षणेत्तर कभमगयों का कायग एिं व्यिहार
सन्तोषजनक पाया जाता है तो अिले सत्र के
भलए उनका पुनः सेिा अनुबन्ि ण्जलागिकारी के
अनुमोदनोपरान्त क्रकया जायेिा।

क्रकसी कमी की सेिाएं सन्तोषजनक
नहीं पाये जाने की दशा में मूलयांकनकताग
अगिकारी द्िारा सम्बण्न्ित कमी को अपना पक्ष
प्रस्तुत करने का पयागप्त अिसर उपलब्ि कराने
के उपरान्त प्राप्त उत्तर के आिार पर पत्रािली में
उन पररण्स्थततयों का साक्ष्य सहहत स्पटट
आकलन क्रकया जायेिा तथा यहद संविदा का पुनः
अनुबन्ि नहीं क्रकया जाना है तो युण्क्तयुक्त
प्रस्ताि ण्जलागिकारी के समक्ष प्रस्तुत क्रकया
जायेिा।
182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

सेिा अनुबन्ि में यह प्रावििान िी
क्रकया जाये क्रक यहद उनकी सेिायें अनुपयुक्त
पायी जाती हैं तो उन्हें एक माह का नोहटस देकर
सेिा अनुबन्ि को समाप्त कर हदया जायेिा।
िम्िीर पररण्स्थततयों / वित्तीय अतनयभमतता /
िम्िीर अनुशासनहीनता की ण्स्थतत में बबना
कोई नोहटस के यहद सेिा अनुबन्ि समाप्त
करने की आिश्यकता प्रतीत होती है तो ण्जला
बेभसक भशक्षा अगिकारी द्िारा पुटट प्रमाणों
सहहत कायगिाही हेतु प्रस्ताि ण्जलागिकारी के
अनुमोदनाथग प्रस्तुत क्रकया जायेिा। उक्त
समस्त कायगिाही ण्जलागिकारी की अनुमतत से
की जायेिी।

कस्तूरबा िांिी बाभलका विद्यालय
में ियतनत शैक्षखणक एिं भशक्षणेत्तर कभमगयों से
प्रतत िषग सेिा अनुबन्ि पत्र िराया जायेिा।
सेिा अनुबन्ि समाप्त होने पर एक हदन का
अन्तराल देकर कायग के मूलयांकन के अिार पर
संतोषजनक सेिा होने पर अिला नया सेिा
अनुबन्ि 11 माह 29 / हदन के भलए क्रकया
जायेिा।

िषग 2015-16 का शैक्षक्षक सत्र अप्रैल
2015 से प्रारम्ि क्रकया िया है अतः सेिा
अनुबन्ि इस प्रकार से क्रकया जाये क्रक अनुबन्ि
की
अिगि
मािग
तक
पूणग
हो
जाये।
फलतः एक शैक्षक्षक सत्र में कुछ माह कम होंिे
परन्तु आिामी अनुबन्ि क्रकये जाने पर यह
अिगि 11 माह 29 हदन रहेिी।

सामान्य तौर पर एक कस्तूरबा िांिी
बाभलका विद्यालय के कमी का स्थानान्तरण
क्रकसी दूसरे कस्तूरबा िांिी बाभलका विद्यालय
में
नहीं
क्रकया
जायेिा।
अपररहायग
एिं
अपिादजनक ण्स्थतत में पदररक्त होने की दशा
में ही क्रकसी कमी का स्थानान्तरण क्रकया
जायेिा तथा इसके भलए ण्जला बेभसक भशक्षा
अगिकारी द्िारा पुटट प्रमाणों सहहत कायगिाही
हेतु प्रस्ताि वििाराथग जनपदीय ियन सभमतत
के समक्ष प्रस्तुत क्रकया जायेिा। जनपदीय
ियन सभमतत की संस्तुतत के उपरान्त
ण्जलागिकारी
को
अनुमतत
के
उक्त
स्थानान्तरण की कायगिाही की जायेिी।"

11. From the aforesaid it is clear that
appointment of the petitioner was made for
one session which was to be renewed every
year on the basis of her work and conduct.
The petitioner has not placed anything in
the rejoinder affidavit to dispute the the
aforesaid submissions as advanced by
counsel for respondents.

12. Learned Standing Counsel submits
that the appointment of the petitioner was
purely contractual, limited to a fixed
period, and governed entirely by the terms
of the agreement/Government order. Upon
expiry of the term, the petitioner has no
right, much less a fundamental right, to
seek continuation. He has placed reliance
upon the judgements of Apex Court passed
in
case
of
Director,
Institute
of
Management Development v. Pushpa
Srivastava, (1992) 4 SCC 33, and State of
Haryana v. Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC
118.

13. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

14. It is a settled law that a contractual
appointee holds no vested right to seek
8 All. Smt. Shiv Kumari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
183
renewal or regularization after expiry of the
term. Once the contractual period expires,
the appointment automatically comes to an
end, and the employee cannot claim
extension as a matter of right. The Apex
Court in the case of Pushpa Srivastava
(supra), has categorically held that when
an appointment is contractual and for a
specific term, it comes to an end on expiry
of the term, and the employee cannot claim
continuation.
Similarly,
in
State
of
Haryana v. Piara Singh, 1992 4 SCC 118,
it was observed that temporary, ad hoc, or
contractual
employees
cannot
claim
regularization or renewal as of right.

15. In the present case, the contract of
the petitioner expired by efflux of time.
There
is
no
clause
in
the
agreement/Government order guaranteeing
renewal.
The
claim
of
legitimate
expectation is also misconceived in absence
of any promise for extension. Unless
arbitrariness or mala fides are shown,
which is not the case here as after seeing
conduct and work of the petitioner order
impugned has been passed. The Court
cannot issue a mandamus for renewal of a
purely contractual engagement.

16. This Court finds that contractual
appointee has no vested right to renewal or
regularization. A contractual appointee
holds the post only for the period specified
in the contract. On expiry of the contractual
term, the appointment automatically comes
to an end by efflux of time. Such an
appointee has no legal or vested right to
seek renewal or continuation unless the
contract itself provides for it.

17. Reference has been made in the
following Apex Court judgements:-

(i). The Apex Court in the case
State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh. (1992) 4
SCC 118, held that a temporary or
contractual
appointee
cannot
claim
regularization as a matter of right.

(ii). In the case of Director,
Institute of Management Development vs.
Pushpa Srivastava, (1992) 4 SCC 33, the
Apex Court held that a contractual
appointee has no right to claim extension
or regularization after the term of the
contract.

18. The principle of "legitimate
expectation" does not apply to contractual
appointments unless there is a clear
promise of renewal in the contract itself.

(i). The Supreme Court has stated
in the case of State of U.P. vs. Kaushal
Kishore Shukla, (1991) 1 SCC 691, that
where the appointment is contractual and
for a fixed period, there is no right of
renewal or continuation.

19.
The
terms
of
the
contract
specifically provide for automatic renewal
on fulfilment of certain conditions. Nonrenewal
is
found
to
be
arbitrary,
discriminatory, or violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution (for example, if similarly
situated contractual employees are renewed
and one is singled out without valid
reason), which is not the case of the
petitioner.

(i). The Apex Court in the case of
Karnataka State Private College Stop-Gap
Lecturers
Association
vs.
State
of
Karnataka, (1992) Supp (2) SCC 29, stated
that though appointment was contractual in
nature, if the State acts arbitrarily in renewal,
it may invite judicial review.
184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

20. Be that as it may, a person
appointed on contract basis has no
enforceable right to claim renewal or
continuation
of
service
beyond
the
stipulated period. Once the contractual term
ends, the appointment automatically lapses.
Renewal or reappointment is entirely at the
discretion
of
the
employer,
unless
arbitrariness
or
discrimination
is
demonstrated."

21. In view of above submissions and
the settled position of law, the instant
petition is devoid of merit and is
dismissed, accordingly.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 184
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 50769 of 2013

Devendra Kumar Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
The General Manager Punjab National
Bank & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Nasiruzzaman

Counsel for the Respondents:
N.K. Pandey, Sudha Pandey

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether dismissal of a Bank employee for
transferring ₹12,000/- from a customer's
account without authority, and receiving
the amount through another employee's
account, constitutes gross misconduct
under
Para
5(j)
of
the
Bipartite
Settlement, and whether the punishment
of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate
so as to warrant interference under Article
226.
HEADNOTE
Service
Law
-
Bank
employee
-
Departmental Inquiry - Gross Misconduct
- Financial Integrity - No re-appreciation
of evidence in writ jurisdiction - Dismissal
- Not shockingly disproportionate - Writ
dismissed.
Held
:
Inquiry records shows debit of customer's
account
by
petitioner
without
any
debit
authority and transfer of the amount to another
employee's account, who withdrew it and paid
to the petitioner. Mobin Khan (complainant)
denied signing or authorizing the debit voucher.
Inquiry
Officer,
Disciplinary
Authority
and
Appellate Authority concurrently found petitioner
guilty. In writ jurisdiction court cannot reappreciate evidence or act as appellate court.
Financial
misconduct
in
banking
service
constitutes gross misconduct under Para 5(j) of
Bipartite Settlement. Bank employees are
custodians of public money and are held to the
highest standards of probity. Punishment of
dismissal cannot be said to be shockingly
disproportionate. Writ petition dismissed; (Paras
32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39) (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Indian Oil Corporation v. Ajit Kumar Singh,
(2023) 19 SCC 102; Union of India v.
Managobinda Samantaray, 2022 SCC OnLine SC
284;
Tara
Chand
Vyas
v.
Chairman
&
Disciplinary Authority, (1997) 4 SCC 565; State
Bank of India v. T.J. Paul, (1999) 4 SCC 759;
United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, (2003)
4 SCC 364; Administrator, U.T. of Dadra &
Nagar Haveli v. Gulabhia M. Lad, (2010) 5 SCC
775; State Bank of Mysore v. M.C. Krishnappa,
(2011) 7 SCC 325

List of Acts
Constitution of India

List of Keywords
Bank
employee;
Gross
Misconduct;
Debit
voucher; Passing entries without authority;
Financial Integrity; Transfer of customer money;
No re-appreciation of evidence; Judicial Review;
Disproportionate
punishment;
Custodian
of
public funds.

CASE ARISING FROM