A former company president who was fired after committing serious — but honest — financial wrongdoing was correctly awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars in a wrongful dismissal case, judges have ruled.

Nitin Aggarwal lost his job during his Christmas vacation in 2002, amid accusations that he put his own personal goals ahead of those of mutual fund firm the Leeds Company.

Last year, Mr. Aggarwal received more than $850,000 after Puisne Judge Geoffrey Ball ruled he had not deliberately boosted his own earnings by filing payroll tax returns incorrectly.

Now, following a hearing earlier this month, Appeals Court judges have thrown out an appeal against the decision by the Leeds Company.

Mr. Aggarwal found out he was fired when he telephoned into his office while he was abroad with his family on December 30, 2002.

His termination letter from the company’s lawyers stated: “Our clients have had serious concerns regarding your commitment to the company and that you have been placing your personal goals before that of the objectives of Leeds.”

Following his dismissal, the firm carried out an investigation and concluded that Mr. Aggarwal had been guilty of serious financial wrongdoing in relation to the company accounts.

They alleged he had deliberately inflated profit accounts so that he would gain extra cash from the 25 percent profit share to which he was entitled. Lawyers claimed his wrongdoing was sufficient to justify his immediate dismissal.

Mr. Justice Ball concluded that Mr. Aggarwal had not acted dishonestly in any way and awarded him $850,000.

In the Appeal Court judgment, judge Sir Anthony Evans raised questions over Mr. Aggarwal’s actions, describing his payroll tax return errors as “admittedly serious” and of a nature which “a person of Mr. Aggarwal’s qualifications and experience would not be expected to make”.

Sir Anthony added that errors made by Mr. Aggarwal in relation to credit card payments were also not satisfactorily explained.

However, he concluded that the mistakes could not be deemed dishonest, stating: “We have difficulty in identifying any part of the evidence which could be said unequivocally to support the allegation that he was dishonest, at any stage.

“These errors, even cumulatively, fall far short in our view of proving that Mr. Aggarwal was engaged in the course of conduct motivated by personal gain.”

After the judgment was announced, Mr. Aggarwal declined to comment beyond saying: “Four and a half years. It’s been a long time.”