Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.11004 of 2005 In the matter of an Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 Petitioner *** Sisir Kumar Mohanty Aged about 46 years Son of Late Indramani Mohanty At: Bahadalpur P.S.: Dharmasala District: Jajpur. … -VERSUS- 1. United Bank of India 16, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Calcutta – 700 001 Represented by Chairman-cum-Managing Director. 2. Sri Shankar Kumar Bandopadhyaya Assistant General Manager (Services) (Disciplinary Authority) United Bank of India, 16, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Calcutta – 700 001. 3. Deputy General Manager (Personnel) United Bank of India 16, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Calcutta – 700 001. WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 1 of 49 4. Punjab National Bank Plot No.4205, Delhi Road Sector-10, New Delhi – 110 074 Represented by Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer at the same address. 5. Zonal Manager-cum-General Manager Punjab National Bank, Odisha Zone-1/3 Revenue Plot No.1561(P) Jagamara, P.O.: Khandagiri Bhubaneswar – 751 030 District: Khordha. 6. General Manager (Personnel) Punjab National Bank, Corporate Office, Plot No.4205 Delhi Road, Sector-10, Dwaraka New Delhi – 110 075. ... Counsel appeared for the parties: Opposite parties For the Petitioner : M/s. Basudev Pujari and Ashok Kumar Jena, Advocates For the Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 5 M/s. Harmohan Dhal, B. B. Swain, K. Dhal, G.C. Sahu, and S.K. Nayak, Advocates P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE JUSTICE MR. MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Date of Hearing : 22.10.2025 :: Date of Order : 07.11.2025 ORDER WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 2 of 49 Order dated 18th October, 2004 under Annexure-5 passed by the Assistant General Manager (Services) & Discipline Authority of United Bank of India, at present Punjab National Bank (herein referred to as “the Bank”)- opposite party No.2, whereby the major penalty of “compulsory retirement” was imposed in terms of Regulation 4 of United Bank of India Officer Employees‟ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (for short, “the Regulations, 1976”) and Appellate Order dated 9th June, 2005 under Annexure-6 passed by the Deputy General Manager (Personnel)-opposite party No.3 confirming such punishment of “compulsory retirement” are the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition, wherein the petitioner beseeches indulgence of this Court in exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Case of the petitioner: 2. Facts unfurled in the writ petition reveals that while working as Deputy Manager of Nimpur Branch of the Bank, the petitioner was put under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary action in connection with certain charges causing financial loss during his incumbency at Dhamra Branch, where he worked during 1st May, 1999 to 18th October, 2001. Article of charges being served during the course of enquiry, the Management of Bank examined three witnesses which WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 3 of 49 led to furnishing enquiry report with findings on each of the charges levelled against the petitioner before the Disciplinary Authority. 2.1. The Disciplinary Authority having concurred with the findings recorded in the enquiry report and invoking Regulation 41 of the Regulations, 1976, imposed major 1 Relevant portion of Regulation 4 of the Regulations, 1976 reads as follows: “4. Penalties.— The following are the penalties which may be imposed on an officer employee for acts of misconduct or for any other good and sufficient reasons: Minor Penalties: (a) to (e) *** Major Penalties: (f) to (g) *** (h) (i) and (j) *** Explanation.— The following shall not amount to a penalty within the meaning of this regulation namely: (i) compulsory retirement (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) withholding of one or more increments of an officer employee on account of his/her failure to pass a prescribed departmental test or examination in accordance with the terms of appointment to the post which he/she holds; stoppage of pay of an officer employee at the efficiency bar in a time scale, on the ground of his/her unfitness to cross the bar; non-promotion , whether in an officiating capacity or otherwise, of an officer employee, to a higher grade or post for which he/she may be eligible for consideration but for which he/she is found unsuitable after consideration of his/her case; reversion to a lower grade or post, of an officer employee officiating in a higher grade or post , on the ground that he/she is considered, after trial, to be unsuitable for such higher grade or post , or on administrative grounds unconnected with his/her conduct; reversion to his/her previous grade or post, of an officer employee appointed on probation to another grade or post, during or at the end of the period of probation , in accordance with the terms of his/her appointment or rules or orders governing such probation; reversion of an officer employee to his/her parent organisation in case he/she had come on deputation; Termination of the service: (a) of an officer employee appointed on probation during or at the end of the period of probation , in accordance with the terms of his/her appointment, or the rules or orders governing such probation; WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 4 of 49 penalty of “compulsory retirement” with immediate effect vide Order dated 18th October, 2004 (Annexure-5), which is impugned herein. 2.1. The appeal preferred against said order under Regulation 17 of the Regulations, 1976 came to be
Decision
disposed of vide Order dated 9th June, 2005 (Annexure- 6) confirming the punishment as inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority. 2.2. Being dissatisfied with the Orders dated 18th October, 2004 of the Disciplinary Authority and 9th June, 2005 of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has approached this Court beseeching to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Hearing: (b) (c) (d) in accordance with of an officer employee appointed in a temporary capacity otherwise than under a contract or agreement ,on the expiration of the period for which he/she was appointed, or earlier terms of his/her appointment; of an officer employee appointed under a contract or agreement, in accordance with the terms of such contract of agreement; and of an officer employee on abolition of post; the (ix) (viii) Retirement of an officer employee on his/her attaining the age of superannuation in accordance with the rules and orders governing such superannuation; Termination of employment of a permanent officer employee by giving 3 month‟s notice or on payment of 3 months’ pay and allowances in lieu of notice; Termination of employment of an officer employee on medical grounds, if he/she is declared unfit to continue in bank’s service by the bank‟s medical officer.” (x) WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 5 of 49 3. As the pleadings are completed, the matter is taken up for final hearing on the consent of the counsel for the respective parties. 3.1. Heard Sri Basudev Pujari, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Harmohan Dhal, learned Advocate for the Bank-opposite party Nos.1, 3 and 5. 3.2. Hearing being concluded, the matter was reserved for preparation and pronouncement of order. Rival contentions and submissions: 4. Sri Basudev Pujari, learned Advocate submitted that confirmation of the order imposing punishment in the appeal is not only untenable in the eye of law but also such order suffers lack of reason, thereby violating principles of natural justice besides being contrary to provisions envisaged under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 4.1. It is submitted that though the Disciplinary Authority stated to have concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer, his order is vulnerable inasmuch as the authority has appreciated the evidence on record. Being swayed away by the fact of participation in the course of enquiry it could not be ground to accede to the observations of the Enquiring Authority. The Disciplinary Authority WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 6 of 49 should have conducted further scrutiny by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4.2. Advancing further argument, Sri Basudev Pujari, learned Advocate with vehemence submitted that as the enquiry report is silent about proposal for imposition of punishment, the Disciplinary Authority prior to taking decision on quantum of penalty as enumerated under Regulation 4 ought to have afforded reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to have his say. 4.3. In order to substantiate that the penalty as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority is disproportionate to the charges proved, by way of written note of submission the counsel for the petitioner submitted the following: “(a) The authorities failed to consider that many of the charges had not been established. (b) No notice/scope was provided to the petitioner to submitted explanation even though the disciplinary authority differed from the findings of the inquiry officer (in favour or rather absolving the petitioner the petitioner of the charges levelled against him) on many counts. (c) The Bank had practically not been put to any financial loss. (d) Both the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities, for unexplained reasons ignored the fact that most of the loan/advances were reported to the regional Page 7 of 49 WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 office in the D.P. statements or otherwise practically no financial loss had been caused to the bank. (e) The most important point to be noted is that during the period from 26.02.2001 to 05.10.2002 both this petitioner and management witness Debasis Ghosh were posted as Manager of the Dhamra Branch. From 28.06.2001 till 18.10.2001 Debasis Ghosh was the sole designated Branch Manager. Many of the irregularities alleged against the petitioner are equally applicable to the sanction/grant of loan made by Debasis Ghosh. (f) Jagabandhu Acharya had also taken loan/advance in the same manner as is alleged against the petitioner. (g) This petitioner has been found guilty on the basis of evidence adduced by Debasis Ghosh and Jagabandhu Acharya both of whom had facilitated the petitioner in getting alleged benefits with which the petitioner has been made to face charge; and both of whom had availed similar benefits as alleged against the petitioner but were not proceeded against for reasons best known to the authorities. And on the basis of their evidence the petitioner has been found guilty. (h) It is further relevant to note that during the period from 26.02.2001 to 05.10.2002 both this petitioner and Debasis Ghosh were posted as Manager of Dhamra Branch. From 28.06.2001 till 18.10.2001 Debasis Ghosh was the only designated Branch Manager and many of the alleged irregularities are equally applicable to the sanction/grant of loan made by Debasis Ghosh. WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 8 of 49 (i) The most important point is that the petitioner has not been afforded opportunity to make his submission on question of the penalty imposed. It is all requirement of law under the Constitution of India (Article 311) and is binding on all authorities. Needless to submit United Bank of India and Punjab National Bank are State Under Article-12 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Constitution are binding on it. To repeat, as has been submitted earlier, the petitioner was not granted opportunity to show cause on the quantum of punishment. In the above respect decision reported in AIR 1991 SC 471 may kindly be referred to. (j) failed to consider the The authorities Disciplinary Authority has not given any reason to take different views on the conclusions drawn by the Inquiry Officer nor was the petitioner afforded opportunity to make any submission in that respect. that (k) The Appellate Authority also failed to apply appropriate law to the case in hand. (l) The counter filed by opposite party No.1 to 3 does not meet any of the points raised by the petitioner in the writ petition much less the ones raised in Paragraphs-12 to 21 of the writ petition. (m) A note is given below which would show that the petitioner is cleared of most of the charges levelled in the article of charges. NOTE ON CHARGES LEVELLED AND FINDINGS THEREON (A) Charge Finding of the Sl. No. WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 9 of 49 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. unauthorisedly, Charge No.1 Availed Temporary Advance on eight occasions, totalling Rs.58,000/- Charge No.2(a): Misappropriated Rs.1,11,000/- on Six occasions, by debiting Demand Loan A/c to personal Saving Bank A/c. Charge No.2(b): Siphoned Rs.7,93,400/- on eight occasions by A/c., Demand unauthorisedly and irregularly, to provide undue benefits to beneficiaries. debiting Loan Charge No.2(c) Misappropriated Rs.44,250/- Margin Money for SC/ST borrowers. Charge No.2(d) Created fake Demand Loan of Rs.1,80,000/- in the name of Gadadhar Bera. The delinquent and Harihar Sahu availed it. Charge No.3(a): Between 10/2000 to 2/2001 granted CDL for Rs.8,25,000/- exposing Bank to a risk of Rs.7,22,455/- Charge No.3(b): Granted CDLS to the tune of Rs.1,85,000/- putting the Bank to a risk of Rs.1,23,835/- 8. Charge No.3(c): Sanctioned CDL of Rs.4,53,929/- putting the Bank to a risk of Rs.1,81,450/- Charge No.3(d) Exceeded power Rs.95,000/- 10. Charge No.4: in granting CDL of 9. Caused loss of Rs.15,590/- to the Bank by not realising processing charges. 11. Charge No.5(a): WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 that Defence of ignorance of not procedure accepted. Proved. the Defence loans were fully liquidated, does not minimize gravity of misconduct. Proved. Defence Defence that all loans fully liquidated, except short charging of interest rejected. Committed irregularities. Proved. Delinquent failed to prove he did not misappropriate. Proved. CSO has not been able to establish that this loan account in the of name Gadadhar Bera not fake. Proved. Not proved was the It responsibility of successive managers to recover the dues: Not proved. The CSO should not be held responsible. Not Proved. Not Proved. Admitted. Proved. Not proved/ Page 10 of 49 Exposed the Bank to a financial loss of Rs.99,798/- no finding 12. Charge No.5(b): the Bank Put Rs.3,48,720/- 13. Charge No.6: to a likely loss of Exposed the Bank to a financial loss of Rs.80,770/- and risk of Rs.14,76,258/- Partly proved (Though everything is in the favour of petitioner). No finding/ Not proved. That thus according to the Enquiry report: (I) Charges 3(a) to 3(d), 5(a) and 6 had not been proved. (II) Charge No.4 is proved as admitted. (III) Charge No.5(b) is partly proved. (IV) Charge No.2(c) and 2(d) have been held to have been proved because the petitioner could not prove his innocence. (V) Charge No.1 and 2(a) and 2(b) cannot be said to have been fully proved.” 4.4. Referring to above it is submitted that most of the allegations being not proved, the circumstances do not invite major punishment. Amplifying aforesaid submissions, it is stated that though material was available before the Disciplinary Authority that Management Witness No.1, namely, Debasis Ghosh joined the Branch as Manager on 26th February, 2001, certain transactions effected after his taking over charge have been taken into consideration by the Enquiring Officer, which is concurred by the Disciplinary Authority mechanically. WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 11 of 49 4.5. Arguing further, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner attacked the Appellate Order as vulnerable and drew attention to the following: “The Appellate Authority confirmed the punishment. His conclusions are contrary to the ones recorded by the Enquiring Officer and relied on by the Disciplinary Authority are: (a) The petitioner had of Rs.1,80,000/- (page-50) kind reference is drawn to the conclusion of the E.O. at page 40-41, against Charge No.2(d). created fake loan (b) Although the Charge No.3(a) was not established yet the Bank was exposed to financial risk. (Page-50, Last two Paragraphs). Kind Reference is drawn to the conclusion drawn by the E.O. against Charges 3(a) to 3(c) at Pages 41-49. The Appellate Authority has not discussed/met the aspects on the basis of which the E.O. drew his conclusion. (c) The appellate authority himself admitted Charge No.3(a) had not been established.” that 4.6. It is thus urged that the petitioner was deprived of opportunity to put forth the material facts before the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, and therefore, the orders under Annexures-5 & 6 respectively are susceptible for intervention. 4.7. The order of the Appellate Authority is in flagrant violation of the audi alteram partem and not supported WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 12 of 49 by cogent reason for his conclusions on the material available on record. 4.8. Hence, protesting arduously, Sri Basudev Pujari, learned Advocate contended that the petitioner is entitled to be restored to his original position and the authorities are required to be directed to extend all consequential service and financial benefits. 5. Per contra, Sri Harmohan Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the Bank-opposite parties submitted that in view of Regulation 7(3), the Disciplinary Authority has taken rightful decision having concurred with the findings returned by the Enquiring Authority. Since the Disciplinary Authority is competent to impose penalties enumerated in Regulation 4 read with Regulation 7(3), his order cannot be faulted with. Though not all the charges established against the petitioner, the penalty imposed cannot be said to be irrational, illogical and disproportionate so as to invite interference in the matter. 5.1. Since the petitioner participated in the enquiry on being granted ample opportunities to rebut the charges, the plea taken by the petitioner with respect to violation of principles of natural justice is far from reality. Regulation 7 dealing with action on the enquiry report authorises the disciplinary authority to form opinion on WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 13 of 49 the basis of enquiry report to impose penalty in terms of Regulation 4 notwithstanding provisions contained in Regulation 8. Since Regulation 7 does not envisaged further opportunity of hearing, the Disciplinary Authority has acted in consonance with Regulations, 1976. To buttress his contention, he placed reliance on Union of India Vrs. Mohd. Ramjan Khan, (1990) Supp. 3 SCR 248, Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Vrs. Munna Lal Jain, (2004) Supp. 6 SCR 1031 and the Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager Vrs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, (1996) Supp. SCR 314. 5.2. Laying stress on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party Nos.1 and 3, he submitted that the Bank has admitted to have proceeded with the following charges as stated in paragraph-9 thereof: “9. That the charges broadly against the petitioner are as follows: i) During his service career as Manager of Dhamara Branch had filed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and discharges his duties with utmost integrity, honest. ii) The petitioner has unauthorisedly availed the Bank‟s funds to the tune of Rs.58,000/- by debiting temporary advance accounts on 8 occasions. WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 14 of 49 iii) The petitioner had mis-appropriated the Bank‟s funds to the tune of Rs.1,11,000/- by debiting demand loan accounts of the Bank of 6 occasions by giving to the credit to his personal S.B. accounts on 5 occasions and taking cash into remaining one account for his personal purpose and gain. iv) The petitioner by abusing his position and power had siphoned the bank‟s funds to the tune of Rs.7,93,400/- on 8 occasions by loan accounts debiting branch demand irregularly and unauthorisedly to provide undue benefits to number of beneficiaries. v) the petitioner had mis-appropriated a sum of Rs.44,250/-received as margin money of SC/ST borrowers under OSFDC scheme and laying in the margin deposit accounts of the loan accounts Bank by creating demand unauthorisedly created by him earlier. vi) The petitioner had created false demand loan account bearing No.786 of 2001 on 18.07.2001 in the name of One Gandharba Behera of Rs.1,80,000/- for clearing of the demand loan for Rs.1,50,000/- unauthorized availed by him and one Harikar Sahu on 04.07.2001 and 18.07.2001. Rs.30,000/- and vii) During the month of October, 2000 and February, 2001 the petitioner had sanctioned 13 consumer durable loans for Rs.8,25,000/- irregularly and unauthorisedly by flouting the norms of the Bank. WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 15 of 49 viii) On 09.11.2000 the petitioner had sanctioned and disbursed irregularly and unauthorised 2 Consumer durable loans to two P.M.R.Y. loan defaulters. ix) On 20.12.2000 the petitioner had unauthorised sanctioned 5 loans amounting to Rs.4,53,923/- to the members of one family for creating common assets. consumer durable x) On 19.02.2001 the petitioner had irregularly and unauthorisedly sanctioned and disbursed 3 consumer durable loans for creating common asset. xi) While sanctioning loans, the petitioner did not the proper/appropriate processing realize charges as prescribed by the Bank. xii) On 06.06.2001 the petitioner had sanctioned a P.M.R.Y. loan to one Smt. Jayanti Nayak irregularly by violating all norms of the Bank. xiii) The petitioner had sanctioned and disbursed Rs.3,80,000/- as P.M.R.Y. to Smt. Panthani Giri and Narayan Chanddra Mohakul in irregular manner violating the recommended proposal of the District Task Force. loans xiv) The petitioner irregularly and had unauthorised allowed credit facility to certain account holders against outstaying cheques by flouting the norms of the Bank and did not realize the interest.” 5.3. Valiant attempt is made by the learned counsel for the Bank that irregularities have been committed by the WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 16 of 49 petitioner and being in the position in the Deputy Manager, it is unbecoming of an employee to have casually dealt with finance of the Bank. Therefore, he would submit that no leniency could be shown to the petitioner. Relevant provisions of the Regulations, 1976: 6. Relevant Regulations, viz., Regulations 6, 7 and 8 of the Regulations, 1976, are extracted hereunder: “6. Procedure for imposing Major Penalties: (1) No order imposing any of the major penalties specified in clauses (f), (g), (h), (i) & (j) of Regulation 4 shall be made except after an inquiry is held in accordance with this regulation. (2) Whenever the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of imputation of misconduct or misbehavior any against an officer employee, it may itself enquire into or appoint any other person who is, or has been, a the public servant Inquiring Authority) to enquire into the truth thereof. (hereinafter referred to as Explanation.— When the Disciplinary Authority itself holds the inquiry any reference in sub-regulation (8) to sub- regulation (21) to the Inquiring Authority shall be construed as a reference to Disciplinary Authority. (3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority shall frame definite and WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 17 of 49 distinct charges on the basis of the allegations against the officer employee and the articles of charge, together with a statement of the allegations, list of documents relied on along with copy of such documents and list of witnesses along with copy of statement of witnesses, if any, on which they are based, shall be communicated in writing to the officer employee, who shall be required to submit within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority (not exceeding 15 days), or within such extended time as may be granted by the said Authority, a written statement of his/her defence: Provided that wherever it is not possible to furnish the copies of documents, Disciplinary Authority shall inspection of such allow documents within a time specified in this behalf. the officer employee (4) On receipt of the written statement of the officer employee, or if no such statement is received within the time specified, an enquiry may be held by the Disciplinary Authority itself, or if it is considers it necessary to appoint under sub-regulation (2) an Inquiring Authority for the purpose: Provided that it may not be necessary to hold an inquiry in respect of the articles of charge admitted by the officer employee in his/her written statement but shall be necessary to record its findings on each such charge. (5) The Disciplinary Authority shall, where it is not the inquiring forward the to inquiring authority, authority— WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 18 of 49 (i) A copy of the articles of charges and statements of imputations of misconduct or misbehavior; (ii) A copy of the written statement of defence, if any, submitted by the officer employee; (iii) A list of documents by which and list of witness(es) by whom the articles of charge are proposed to be substantiated; (iv) A copy of statements of the witness(es), if any; (v) Evidence providing the delivery of articles of charge under sub-regulation (3); (vi) A copy of the order appointing the Presiding Officer in terms of sub-regulation (6); (6) Where the Disciplinary Authority itself enquires or inquiring authority for holding an appoints an inquiry, if any, by an order, appoint a public servant to be known as the “Presenting Officer” to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charge. (7) The Officer employee may take the assistance of any other Officer employee but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority is a legal practitioner or, the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits. The Officer employee shall not take the assistance of any other Officer employee who has two pending disciplinary cases on hand in which he has to give assistance. WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 19 of 49 (8) (a) The inquiring authority shall by notice in writing specify the day on which the officer employee shall appear in person before the inquiring authority. (b) On the date fixed by the inquiring authority, the officer employee shall appear before the inquiring authority at the time, place and date specified in the notice. (c) The inquiring authority shall ask the officer employee whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make and if he pleads guilty to any of the articles of charge, the inquiring authority shall record the plea, sign the record and obtain the signature of the officer employee concerned thereon. (d) The inquiring authority shall return a finding of guilty in respect of those articles of charge to which the officer employee concerned pleads guilty. (9) If the officer employee does not plead guilty, the inquiring officer shall adjourn the case to a later date not exceeding 30 days or within such extended time as may be granted by the inquiring authority. (10) The Inquiring Authority while adjourning the case as in sub-regulation (9), shall also record by an order that the officer employee may for the purpose of preparing defence— (i) Complete inspection of the documents as in the list furnished to him/her immediately and in any case not exceeding 5 days from the date of such order if he/she had not done so earlier as WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 20 of 49 provided for regulation(3); in the provision to sub- (ii) Submit a list of documents and witnesses that he/she wants for the enquiry; (iii) Be supplied with copies of statement of witnesses, if any, recorded earlier and the inquiring authority shall furnish such copies not the commencement of the examination of the witnesses by the inquiring authority; three days before than later (iv) Give a notice within ten days of the order or within such further time not exceeding ten days as the Inquiring Authority may allow for the discovery or production of the documents referred to in item 10(ii). Note: The relevancy of the documents and the examination of the witnesses referred to in item 10(ii) shall be given by the officer employee concerned. (11) The inquiring authority shall, on receipt of the notice for the discovery or production of the documents, forward the same or copies thereof to the authority in whose custody or possession the documents are kept with a requisition for the production of the documents on such date as may be specified. (12) On the receipt of the requisition under sub- regulation(11), the authority having the custody or possession of the requisitioned documents, shall arrange to produce the same before the inquiring WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 21 of 49 authority on the date, place and time specified in the requisition: Provided that the authority having the custody or possession of the requisitioned documents may claim privilege if the production of such documents will be against the public interest or the interests of the Bank. In that event, it shall inform the inquiring authority accordingly. (13) On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral and documentary evidence by which the articles of charge are proposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. The witnesses produced by the Presenting Officer shall be examined by the Presenting Officer and may be cross-examined by or on behalf of the officer employee. The Presenting Officer shall be entitled to re-examine his/her witnesses on any points on which they have been cross-examined, but not on a new matter without the leave of the inquiring authority. The inquiring authority may also put such questions to the witnesses as it thinks fit. in the inquiring authority may, (14) Before the close of the case, in support of the charges, its discretion, allow the Presenting Officer to produce the evidence not included in the charge-sheet/list of documents or may itself call for a new evidence or recall or re-examine any witness. In such case the officer employee shall be given opportunity to inspect the documentary evidence before it is taken on record, or to cross-examine a witness, who has been so summoned. The inquiring authority may also allow the Officer employee to produce new evidence, WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 22 of 49 if it is of opinion that the production of such evidence is necessary in the interests of justice. (15) When the case in support of the charges is closed, the officer employee may be required to state his defence orally or in writing, as he/she may prefer. If the defence is made orally, it shall be recorded and the officer employee shall be required to sign the record. In either case a copy of the statement of defence be given to the Presenting Officer, if any, appointed. (16) The evidence on behalf of the officer employee shall then be produced. The officer employee may examine himself/herself in his/her own behalf, if he/she so prefers. The witnesses produced by the officer employee shall then be examined by the officer employee and may be cross-examined by the Presenting Officer. The officer employee or his/her defence council shall be entitled to re-examine any of his/her witnesses on any points on which they have been cross-examined but not on any new matter without the leave of the inquiring authority. (17) The inquiring authority may, after the officer employee closes his/her evidence, and shall, if the officer employee has not got himself/herself the examined, generally question him/her on circumstances appearing against him/her in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the officer employee to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him/her. (18) After the completion of the production of the evidence, the officer employee and the Presenting Officer may file written briefs of their respective WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 23 of 49 cases within 15 days of the date of completion of the production of evidence. (19) If the officer employee does not submit the written statement of defence referred to in sub-regulation (3) on or before the date specified for the purpose or does not appear in person or through the assisting officer or otherwise fails or refuses to comply with any of the provisions of these regulations, the inquiring authority may hold the inquiry ex parte. (20) Whenever any inquiring authority, after having heard and recorded the whole or any part of the evidence in an inquiry ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein, and is succeeded by another inquiring authority which has, and which exercises, such jurisdiction, the inquiring authority so succeeding may act on the evidence so recorded by its predecessor, or partly recorded by the predecessor and partly recorded by itself: Provided that if the succeeding inquiring authority is of the opinion that further examination of any of the witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded is necessary in the interest of justice, it may recall, examine, cross examine and re-examine any such witnesses as hereinbefore provided. (21) (i) On the conclusion of the inquiry the inquiring authority shall prepare a report which shall contain the following: a) A gist of the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour; WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 24 of 49 b) A gist of the defence of the officer employee in respect of each article of charge; c) An assessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge; d) The findings on each article of charge and the reasons therefor. Explanation: If, in the opinion of the Inquiring Authority, the proceeding of the inquiry establish any article of charge different from the original article of charge, it may record its finding on such article of charge: Provided that the findings on such article of charge shall not be recorded unless the officer employee has either admitted the facts on which such article of charge is based or has had a reasonable opportunity of defending himself/herself against such article of charge. (ii) The inquiry authority, where it is not itself the Disciplinary Authority, shall forward to the Disciplinary Authority the records of inquiry which shall include— a) The report of the inquiry prepared by it under clause(i); b) The written statement of defence, if any, submitted by the officer employee referred to in sub-regulation (15); c) The oral and documentary evidence produced in the course of the inquiry; WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 25 of 49 d) Written briefs referred to in sub-regulation (18), if any; and e) The orders, if any, made by the Disciplinary Authority and the inquiring authority in regard to the inquiry. 7. Action on the Enquiry Reports: (1) The Disciplinary Authority, if it is not itself the inquiring authority, may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for fresh or further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provision of Regulation 6 as far as may be. (2) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it is disagreed with the findings of the inquiring authority on any its reasons for such article of charge, record disagreement and record its own finding on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. (3) If the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Regulation 4 should be imposed on the officer shall, notwithstanding anything employee contained in Regulation 8, make an order imposing such penalty. it (4) If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that no penalty is called for, it may pass an order exonerating the officer employee concerned. WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 26 of 49 8. Procedure for imposing Minor Penalties. (1) Where it is proposed to impose any of the minor penalties specified in clauses(a) to (e) of Regulation 4, the officer employee concerned shall be informed in writing of the imputations of lapses against him/her and given an opportunity to submit his/her written statement of defence within a specified period not exceeding 15 days or such extended period as may be granted by the Disciplinary if any, Authority and submitted by the officer employee shall be taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority before passing orders. the defence statement, (2) Where, however, the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied that an enquiry is necessary, it shall follow the procedure for imposing a major penalty as laid down in Regulation 6. (3) The record of the proceedings in such cases shall include— (i) (ii) a copy of the statement of imputations of lapses furnished to the officer employee; the defence statement, if any, of the officer employee; and the orders of the Disciplinary Authority together with the reasons therefor.” Analysis and discussions: 7. It is apparent from the enquiry report that most of the charges levelled against the petitioner could not be proved by the Bank. It is emanating from record that the Enquiring Authority while returning findings on each of WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 27 of 49 the charges has not suggested any of the punishments/ penalties enumerated in Regulation 4 of the Regulations, 1976. The Order dated 18th October, 2004 passed by the Disciplinary Authority reveals the following fact: “On perusal of the enquiry report, related papers and documents, I have found that all the allegations/ charges levelled against you as referred in the Bank’s Charge Sheet dated 27.10.2003 were proved at the enquiry. The case was all along heard in presence of you. You along with your defence representative fully participated in the enquiry. I concur with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. of Considering your submission on the Enquiry Report., I find that some of the a/c’s as mentioned in charge sheet under charges No.2, 3 were closed/liquidated and some of the a/c’s were under the NPA code “O” i.e., Standard Assets. But as the Manager the Branch, you misutilised your position/power and in an irregular manner availed temporary advance on difference occasions without any approval from your higher authority and without register. the same with recording/entering Moreover, without any consideration, documentation, and without any security you had availed demand loan on different occasion, even you did not think it prudent to report to your controlling/Regional Authority. Apart from misutilising the Bank‟s fund for your personal gain and purpose you had sanctioned and disbursed different types of advances recklessly, without adhering the lending norms of the Bank and also without due consideration. Subsequent recovery/liquidation of some of the loan a/c‟s and or N.P.A. code “O” i.e. the said related loan WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 28 of 49 Standard Assets does not in any way, lesson the gravity of the charges proved against you. It has also been proved in the enquiry that your action in handling advance portfolio of Dhamara Branch is questionable. Therefore, considering all the above aspects and the gravity of the proved misconduct and also after application of my mind independently I like to impose upon you the major penalty in terms of Regulation 4(h) of United Bank of India Officer Employee‟s (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 which will be just, proper and will commensurate with the misconduct proved against you. Therefore, I impose upon you the following major penalty with immediate effect:- “Compulsory retirement”. Please note you shall not be entitled to any pay and allowances during the period of your suspension save and except what have been paid to you as and by way of subsistence allowance.” 7.1. As is manifest from the above that the Disciplinary Authority has not verified each of the allegations with the material available on record vis-a-vis submission of the petitioner to establish veracity of the observations made in the enquiry report. The presence of “some” in aforesaid decision of the Disciplinary Authority is fortifies such observation. The finding turned by the Disciplinary Authority is indicative of that as if all the charges are proved against the petitioner; nonetheless, such observation is contrary to material on record which WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 29 of 49 is perceived from the factual submissions made by the petitioner as per the table given above. Instead of verifying each account with the observation in the enquiry report and documents forming part thereof, the Disciplinary Authority appears to have verified random accounts. The observations made by the Enquiring Officer has been accepted by the Disciplinary Authority without due application of mind and forming independent opinion thereon. 7.2. The Disciplinary Authority should have examined the observations made in the enquiry report instead of concurring with the same. Such mechanical acceptance of observations in the enquiry report which led to imposition of major penalty would not be proper in view of State of UP Vrs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh, (1989) 1 SCR 176 wherein it has been succinctly held that, “It is true that in exercise of powers of revoking or cancelling the permission is akin to and partakes of a quasi judicial complexion and that in exercising of the former power the authority must bring to bear an unbiased mind, consider impartially the objections raised by the aggrieved party and decide the matter consistent with the principles of natural justice. The authority cannot permit its decision to be influenced by the dictation of others as this would amount to abdication and surrender of its discretion. It would then not be the authority‟s discretion that is exercised, but someone else‟s. If an WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 30 of 49 authority hands over its discretion to another body it acts ultra vires. Such an inference by a person or body extraneous to the power would plainly be contrary to the nature of the power conferred upon the authority.” 7.3. There is also no merit in the contention of Sri Harmohan Dhal, learned Advocate for the Bank that there was no requirement to afford further opportunity while deciding to impose quantum of penalty based on enquiry report inasmuch as during the course of enquiry the petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity. Reference may be had to Rashmi Cement Ltd. Vrs. State of Odisha, 113 (2012) CLT 177, which in turn followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police Vrs. Gordhan Das Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16. Where a quasi judicial authority (Disciplinary Authority) vested with the power for imposition of penalty, he could not have acted under the „dictation‟ of another authority (Enquiring Authority). 8. From the appeal memo, copy of which is enclosed at Annexure-C/1 of the counter affidavit, it is revealed as follows: “(A) D.A. in para-4 page-1 of his letter under reference says “On perusal of Enquiry Report, related papers and documents, the allegations/ charges levelled against you (me) as referred in Bank‟s charge sheet dated 27.10.2003 were proved in the enquiry”. This particular that all I have found WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 31 of 49 edifice on which the harshness of the penalty stands is wrong, ill conceived and far from truth. As a result of this, he has arrived at certain conclusions which are also wrong and extremely injurious to me. I shall now quote extensively from the Report of EO, which will give a completely different version of the affair. Hence the cause of appeal arose. (i) (ii) (iii) In respect of charge 3(a), the EO observed “in the light of the above facts, the charge that all the CDL A/C against charge 3(a), as quantified in the charge sheet, is not proved.” (page-7 of EO‟s report). In respect of charge 3(b) EO observed “However, it has not been adequately proved that at the time of sanction of these two loans, both the borrowers were PMRY Loan that defaulters. Moreover, subsequently both the CDLs became NPA has also not been proved.” charge the In respect of charge 3(D) EO observed “there was repayment in most of the accounts, review sheets were positive and MW1 (next Manager) in the proceeding confirmed that he had met all the CDL Borrowers, he found them to be good having the intention to repay the loans, the borrowers had utilised the money for the purpose they had taken and such deployment of credit has contributed the overall profitability of the Branch. to (iv) In respect of charge 5(a) the EO observed, however, contrary to what has been stated in WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 32 of 49 the charge sheet “Pre-sanction inspection of the unit has been conducted. Unit is existing and the borrower is not able to repay the loan as his financial condition is not good after his house was gutted in fire.” (v) In respect of charge of 5(b), the EO observed “Therefore, it is my opinion that charge 5(b) is partly proved.” (vi) D.A. in his recital has not mentioned even for once that the bank did not undertake any financial loss. This very important defence line has been altogether ignored. Here also the cause of appeal arose. (vii) I make a fervent appeal to you to kindly consider the aforesaid grounds of appeal in light of the following facts: (a) Bank did not undergo any financial loss (b) all the borrowers exist and they have intention to repay and the bank loans were used for productive purposes. (B) A plain reading of the order of the Disciplinary Authority, therefore, shows that he has not applied his mind on the related papers and documents. While several charges have been held to be not proved by the Enquiring Officer, the D.A. has held that “all the allegations” have been proved. On this ground alone, the punishment should be set aside. (C) The Enquiry Officer has also caused serious fault by assuming that the „Onus‟ to disprove the charge rests on the CSO. In Departmental Enquiry the „Onus‟ to prove charges rests with the prosecution. If the P.O. fails to prove the charges and the CSO WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 33 of 49 remains a mute spectator during the hearing, the E.O. cannot hold that the charge(s) have been proved or that the CSO failed to disprove the charge. I am giving a few illustration. (i) Charge No.2(c). Page-6 of EO‟s report. “…. It was the onus of the CSO to establish that there was no misappropriation of Margin Money. ..., which he has failed to establish.” (ii) Charge No.2(d), Page-6 (top) of the EO‟s report. “The CSO has not been able to establish that his loan account in the name of Gadadhar Bera was not fake. Therefore, these charges are sought to be held proved by the E.O. and also by the D.A. by shifting the „Onus‟ on the CSO. This is against law and miscarriage of justice.” 8.1. Apropos aforesaid grounds of the appeal, it appears that the Appellate Authority has not considered each ground agitated before him by affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Paragraph 5 of Appellate Order leads to believe that the Appellate Authority has taken note of certain grounds from above grounds found place at memorandum of appeal. He, being quasi judicial authority should have addressed to each ground. 8.2. In Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Vrs. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 307 it has been laid down that: WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 34 of 49 “Therefore, the courts should adjudicate on all the issues and give its findings on all the issues and not to pronounce the judgment only on one of the issues. As such it is the duty cast upon the courts to adjudicate on all the issues and pronounce the judgment on all the issues rather than adopting a shortcut approach and pronouncing the judgment on only one issue. By such a practice, it would increase the burden on the appellate court and in many cases if the decision on the issue decided is found to be erroneous and on other issues there is no adjudication and no findings recorded by the court, the appellate court will have no option but to remand the matter for its fresh decision. Therefore, to avoid such an eventuality, the courts have to adjudicate on all the issues raised in a case and render findings and the judgment on all the issues involved.” 8.3. In Nutan Ispat and Power Private Limited Vrs. State of Chhatisgarh, 2020 SCC OnLine Chh 1985 the Court held, “7. It is by now a well settled position of law that the Appellate Authority while deciding the Appeal is duty bound to consider the grounds of challenge. The Appellate Authority is also required to pass a reasoned and speaking order considering and dealing with those grounds. The impugned Order in the instant case, which is the order passed by the Appellate Authority, seems to be more of an order passed by the Assessing Authority rather than an order passed by the Appellate Authority. In the opinion of this Court, the Appeal has not been justifiably decided and therefore the same deserves to be remitted back to the Appellate Authority for passing of a reasoned and speaking order dealing with the grounds raised in the Appeal WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 35 of 49 8. challenging the order passed by the Assessing Authority on 20.8.2018. In East Coast Railway Vrs. Mahadev Appa Rao with K. Surekha Vrs. Mahadeo Appa Rao, (2010) 7 SCC 678, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in very categorical terms has held that arbitrariness in making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Every order passed by a public authority must disclose due and proper application of mind by the persons making the order. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind by the authority making the order and disclosure is best done by recording the reasons that led the authority to pass the order in question. Absence of reasons either in the order passed by the authority or in the is clearly record contemporaneously maintained suggestive of the order being arbitrary hence legally unsustainable. In the absence of reasons in support of the order it is difficult to assume that the authority had properly applied its mind before passing of the order.” 8.4. As is apparent from the paragraph-6 of the Appellate Order, the Appellate Authority was swayed away by the fact that, “the Enquiry Officer has held the enquiry in fair, impartial and unbiased manner observing the principles of natural justice and allowed all reasonable opportunities to Sri Mohanty to defend his case including allowing him to take the assistance of a defence representative of his choice for the purpose of his assistance/defence in the enquiry”. WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 36 of 49 8.5. From the tenor of the Appellate Order, it appears that the Appellate Authority has unilaterally proceeded to confirm the factual aspect. To illustrate this aspect analysis of the following aspect is felt expedient. It has been observed in the Appellate Order that, “The frequent withdrawal of Bank‟s fund for personal use, as and when desired, on some pretext or other throws gleams of his bohemian style of functioning as an autonomous body which is absolutely uncalled for in a sensitive profession like banking which deals with public money.” 8.6. Save and except “irregular”, but not “illegal”, grant of loan, there is nothing in the enquiry report to suggest that the petitioner had abused his position for personal gain. As if negative fact that there was no misuse of money for personal gain was to be established by the petitioner, the Enquiring Authority has submitted enquiry report. It is trite that negative fact need not be proved by the charged officer/delinquent. It is general proposition that normally the negatives are not proved because it is almost impossible to prove a negative fact. It is only the positive assertions which can be proved. To illustrate, it is possible to give proof of the positive fact that one has committed theft, but not the converse, i.e., one cannot prove the negative that he has not committed theft. WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 37 of 49 9. It is significant to take note of that the enquiry report is silent about the nature of punishment imposed. Nevertheless, the Disciplinary Authority having concurred with the findings contained in the enquiry report should not have imposed major penalty without following the principles of natural justice with respect to quantum of penalty to be imposed. 9.1. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner which remained uncontroverted by the Bank is that certain transactions not related to the petitioner has been considered for the purpose of construing gravity of irregularity committed. It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that the irregular manner of extending the loan to various persons has identically been issued by another similarly situated employee, who is examined as witness. However, no action has been taken against him for the reasons best known to the Bank. 9.2. Scrutiny of record does not reveal while concurring with the findings of the Enquiring Officer, the Disciplinary Authority has delved into merit of the same particularly to the objections raised by the petitioner with respect to certain transactions related to Debasis Ghosh, the Management Witness No.1. WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 38 of 49 9.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no pecuniary loss has been proved by the Bank and the petitioner having restored the amount alleged to the Bank, penalty of such magnitude should not have been inflicted; that too without affording opportunity of hearing. Such aspect being not disputed by the opposite parties, this Court does not perceive fallacy in submission of the counsel. Therefore, had proper opportunity been given, the petitioner could have on the basis of documents demonstrated that the circumstances of allegations did not invite imposition of major penalty. This being not seemly appreciated by the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Order suffers violation of principle of natural justice and caused severe prejudice to the petitioner. 9.4. The petitioner, it seems, was denied of proper opportunity to place materials. Regulation 7(3) of the Regulations, 1976 though has not expressly spelt out issue of show-cause for the purpose of rendering explanation with regard to imposition of major penalty, taking cue from Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India while taking such a drastic step leading to prejudice and civil consequences it is for the Disciplinary Authority to afford fair opportunity of hearing to maintain transparency in action and decision making process. It is worthwhile to say what is not explicitly WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 39 of 49 excluded, the principles of natural justice is to be read as ingrained as a mandatory requirement. 9.5. In Maharana Pratap Singh Vrs. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 890 it has been held as follows: “55. Law is trite that while exercising its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not exercise powers that are available to an appellate court. It is the decision-making process that falls for scrutiny. Be that as it may, the High Courts can rectify errors of law or procedural irregularities, if any, that lead to a manifest miscarriage of justice or breach of the principles of natural justice. Law is also well- established that the standards for establishing a guilt in disciplinary proceedings differ from those applicable to criminal proceedings. However, it is that departmental authorities are equally obligated to provide a fair opportunity to the parties involved, and what constitutes a fair opportunity must be determined based on the facts and circumstances of each case, as has been laid down in State of Mysore Vrs. Shivabasappa Shivappa Makarpur, AIR 1963 SC 375. true 56. It is well-established that any action resulting in penal or adverse consequences must be consistent with the principles of natural justice. To sustain a complaint of natural justice violation, based on lack of opportunity for cross-examination, the party alleging the violation must show that prejudice was caused, as affirmed by this Court in L.K. Tripathi Vrs. State Bank of India, (1984) 1 SCC 43.” WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 40 of 49 9.6. In addition to showing that the petitioner was not guilty of any misconduct so as to award major punishment, it is reasonable and desirable that he should also have an opportunity to contend that the charges proved against him do not necessarily require the particular punishment proposed to be meted out to him. He may say, for instance, that although he has been guilty of some misconduct, it is not of such a character as to merit the extreme punishment of “compulsory retirement” and that he may be imposed with any of the lesser punishments. 9.7. Reference to Union of India Vrs. Subrata Nath, (2022) 18 SCR 605 may be pertinent here. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India has been pleased to lay down that: “22. To sum up the legal position, being fact finding authorities, both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine the evidence forming part of the inquiry report. On finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct. However, in exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court or for that matter, the Tribunal cannot ordinarily reappreciate the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion in respect of the penalty imposed unless and until the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the offence that it WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 41 of 49 of the shock conscience would the High Court/Tribunal or is found to be flawed for other reasons, as enumerated in Union Of India and Others Vrs. P. Gunasekaran, (2014) 13 SCR 1312. If the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee is such that shocks the conscience of the High Court or the Tribunal, then the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority may be called upon to re-consider the penalty imposed. Only in exceptional circumstances, which need to be mentioned, should the High impose appropriate Court/Tribunal decide punishment by itself, on offering cogent reasons therefor.” to 9.8. As it is found from the record that the Disciplinary Authority having acceded to the findings in the enquiry report, where no penalty is suggested, it seems the petitioner had had no opportunity before the Disciplinary Authority to present his matter inasmuch as the imposition of major penalty as enumerated in Regulation 4 of the Regulations, 1976 was inflicted based on material contained in the enquiry report. Furthermore, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that certain transactions relating to other employee could not have weighed as evidence for imposing major penalty. The Appellate Authority, being fact-finding authority should have taken into consideration such aspects and afforded due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 42 of 49 9.9. In General Manager (Operation-1)/Appellate Authority, UCO Bank and Others, (2022) 13 SCC 237 it has been observed thus: “17. So far as the scope of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiry is concerned, it has been settled that the constitutional courts while exercising their power of judicial review under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution would not assume the role of the appellate authority where is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. At the same time, the power of judicial review is not analogous to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority. jurisdiction 18. It was never the case of the respondent delinquent even before the High Court that the departmental inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Regulations, 1976 or there was violation of any provision of Regulations, 1976 or fair opportunity of hearing was not afforded to him in the course of inquiry or there was violation of the principles of natural justice. 19. We have gone through the record of inquiry with the assistance of learned counsel and, in our considered view, the finding which has been recorded by the inquiry officer in reference to charge Nos. 1, 2 and 3 is duly supported with the material on record and after revisiting the record of inquiry, has been confirmed by the disciplinary/appellate authority. At the same time, while upholding the guilt of the WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 43 of 49 respondent delinquent, the appellate authority took a lenient view and modified the punishment by an Order dated 14th November, 1998.” 9.10. In State of Uttar Pradesh Vrs. Ram Prakash Singh, 2025 INSC 565 = (2025) 5 SCR 275 it has been in unambiguous terms spelt out that: followed “It is clear, on a bare reading of Rule 9, that the procedure contemplated therein corresponds to the procedure that in conducting disciplinary was ordinarily proceedings prior to amendment of Article 311 by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976. As held in paragraph 27 of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad Vrs. B. Karunakar, (1993) Supp.2 SCR 576, where the enquiry officer is other than the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary proceedings break into two stages. The first stage ends when the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions on the basis of the evidence, the delinquent report and enquiry officer’s employee’s reply to it with regard to his alleged guilt. The second stage begins when the disciplinary authority decides to impose penalty on the basis of its conclusions reached at the first stage. If the Disciplinary Authority decides to drop the disciplinary proceedings, the second stage is not even reached. The employee‟s right to receive the report is, thus, a part of the reasonable opportunity of defending himself in the first stage of the enquiry. If this right is denied to him, he is in effect denied the right to defend himself and to prove his innocence in the disciplinary proceedings.” 9.11. In view of the law as propounded, when the record available is examined, it is untrammelled that there is no WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 44 of 49 whisper in the Appellate Order that the petitioner was ever heard before taking a decision on the quantum of penalty by the Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate Authority should have re-examined the evidence on record independently in order to appreciate the justification for major penalty, like “compulsory retirement”, on the facts and in the circumstances narrated hereinabove. It is the case of the counsel that so far as imposition of major penalty is concerned the petitioner was deprived of reasonable and adequate opportunity before the authorities. Under the above perspective, considering the fact that this matter has been pending since 2005 and had the petitioner continued in service would have attained age of superannuation by now, it is felt apposite to direct the Appellate Authority to reconsider the plight of the petitioner and take a decision as deemed appropriate without being influenced by any of the observations made in the impugned order. 9.12. On the conspectus of the aforesaid undisputed facts and the submissions so advanced by the respective parties it is unequivocal that there has been violation of audi alteram partem, which is ingrained into a legal system and is regarded as a fundamental principle inviting a strict adherence in any judicial, administrative or quasi judicial proceedings. A person cannot be condemned WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 45 of 49 without affording opportunity to defend nor can the authorities proceed to decide the fate of the proceedings without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the person, who would be affected by such decision. The principles of natural justice gained momentum in a judicial parlance and a paradigm shift in its journey can be seen where mere technical violation of the principle of natural justice may not entail the entire decision liable to be struck down, unless the person, who perceived such violation, produces cogent materials that it caused him greater prejudice. “Prejudice” is a relative term and its applicability varies in a given situation depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The prejudice may not be construed as a technical rule but it strikes at the root of the cause and denial of opportunity of a meaningful representation and/or participation in the disciplinary proceeding. 9.13. This Court, thus, appreciates the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties that the writ Court should not act as an appellate Court nor should it re-appreciate the evidence in the disciplinary proceeding but should confine its scrutiny within the four corners of the legal parameters as set forth in this regard. The scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India in relation to a disciplinary proceeding is within the limited compass to be exercised within the contour of law and WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 46 of 49 the writ Court cannot put itself into the arm chair of the Disciplinary Authority. The limited scope of interference against the disciplinary proceeding is well recognized to be exercised on a manifest violation of the principle of natural justice, departure from the statutory provisions, fairness, impartiality and the transparency shown by the Disciplinary Authority not tainted with bias or of like nature, above all violation of any of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution. In this regard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that identical irregularity committed by another employee of equal rank based on whose statement the petitioner is inflicted with penalty can be appreciated. The aforesaid principles are mere illustrative and not exhaustive as in an appropriate case, there may be other incidents where the writ Court can interfere with the order of the Disciplinary Authority. 9.14. In the facts of the present case, it is not only flagrant violation of the principle of natural justice but also there is possible bias inasmuch as transactions relating to other employee having been ignored. Therefore, the Appellate Authority is required to assess the nature of ultimate punishment to be inflicted and also to consider whether the major penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges that shakes the judicial conscience. WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 47 of 49 Conclusion: 10. Under the aforesaid premises, this Court finds force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was denied reasonable opportunity to place material before the Appellate Authority with respect to decision on the quantum of punishment/penalty prior to its imposition. He was not given such opportunity before the Disciplinary Authority to demonstrate that he was not entitled to be awarded with major punishment for the irregularities as alleged. Though the enquiry report is candid in findings that many of the allegations were not proved, the Appellate Authority was duty bound to consider the allegations established vis-a-vis material available on record and re- appreciate the evidence, particularly when the enquiry report was silent about nature of punishment proposed to be awarded. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the order dated 9th June, 2005 of the Appellate Authority. Accordingly the Appellate Order dated 9th June, 2005 (Annexure-6) is set aside and the appeal is remitted to the Appellate Authority of the Bank for fresh adjudication. 10.1. The observations on facts made hereinabove are for the purpose of considering the prejudice caused to the petitioner on account of violation of principles of natural justice. The Appellate Authority is hereby directed to WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 48 of 49 proceed with the hearing of the appeal afresh without being influenced by the earlier order dated 9th June, 2005. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be granted opportunity to have his say and place materials before the Appellate Authority, who shall consider such evidence so adduced before him. 10.2. It is expected that the Appellate Authority after hearing the petitioner and taking into consideration the evidence available on record along with the material, if any, furnished by the petitioner, shall pass reasoned order. Entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from date. 11. With the aforesaid observation and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. As a result of disposal of the writ petition, all the pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of, but in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. (MURAHARI SRI RAMAN) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 7th November, 2025//Aswini/Bichi/Laxmikant WP(C) No.11004 of 2005 Page 49 of 49 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY Designation: Personal Assistant (Secretary in- charge) Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 07-Nov-2025 14:57:09