The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 3809 of 2024 Mrs. Aparna Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. J.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate -versus- Zonal Manager, Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Berhampur and others …. Opposite Parties . CORAM: JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 22.02.2024 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. Heard Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the following prayer:- “Under the above circumstances, it is therefore, humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to supply the petitioner the copy of documents and list of witnesses along with the statement of witnesses basing on which the charges have been framed against the petitioner, as provided under Regulation 6(3) of the 1976 Regulation and also the documents relied on by the Presiding Officer to be supplied to the petitioner // 2 // to inspect the petitioner be permitted and the documents which could not to be supplied to the petitioner as per the reasons indicated by the disciplinary authority and accordingly, allow the petitioner to submit her written statement of defence and the petitioner be permitted to defend her case in accordance with the provisions prescribed under the Regulations. Further the Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the appointment of the Opposite Party No.3 as the Inquiring Officer vide Annexure-6 and the Opposite Party No.2 be direct to appoint some other person as the Inquiring Officer, in view of the fact that the Opposite Party No.3 has shown highly interestedness in conducting the inquiry against the petitioner by exceeding the jurisdiction and authority provided under the Regulation. And the Hon’ble Court be further pleased to quash the communication made by the Opposite Party No.3 dated 07.02.2024 vide Annexure-18 to the writ application wherein he has intimated of the closure of the Inquiry and submission of the Inquiry report by him.” 4. Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, at the outset, submitted that the present Petitioner was initially working as a Manager in the Indian Bank which was subsequently merged with the Allahabad Bank pursuant to a decision of the Government of India. While working as such, the Petitioner was placed under suspension on 07.01.2023 pending initiation of a disciplinary proceeding. Earlier the Petitioner approached this Court challenging the order of suspension by filing W.P.(C) No.1984 of 2023. It is stated by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the same is still pending. While the matter stood thus, the Petitioner Page 2 of 5 // 3 // was served with the articles of charge on 10.08.2023 under Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Upon receiving the articles of charge, the Petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges immediately thereafter under Annexue-5 to the writ petition and thereafter the Petitioner immediately filed an application before the authority on 10.10.2023 under Annexue-9 with a prayer to supply with him the relevant documents to defend his case. The list of documents which are required by the Petitioner has been attached to the letter dated 10.10.2023 under Annexure-9 to the writ petition. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner further contended that on 18.11.2023, the Petitioner again wrote another letter to the Inquiring Officer for providing necessary documents to the Petitioner so that he can defend his case effectively. However, such documents have not been provided as of now to the Petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner further contended that the Petitioner apprehends that the Opposite Parties may not provide any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner before passing final order in the disciplinary proceeding. Such apprehension of the Petitioner is based on a final reminder dated 07.02.2024 under Annexure-18 wherein the Petitioner has been asked to submit his defence plea latest by 10.02.2024. In the aforesaid factual background, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner apprehends that the Opposite Parties may not provide any further opportunity to defend his case properly. He further contended that such a right to get a fair opportunity to defend his case in a departmental proceeding Page 3 of 5 // 4 // is not only guaranteed under the relevant rules, but also is a right which flows from the Constitution of India. 5. In the aforesaid context, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India -v.- K.V. Janakiraman, reported in (1991) 4 SCC 409 to impress upon this Court that the Disciplinary Authority has to provide adequate opportunity to the Petitioner to present his case properly. Finally, he has contended that being aggrieved by the inaction of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition with a prayer as has been mentioned hereinabove. 6. Having heard the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and upon a careful examination of the background facts of the present case as well as the materials record, this Court is of the considered view that the Disciplinary Authority while conducting the inquiry or a proceeding against the Petitioner is bound to follow the principle of natural justice and adequate opportunity is required to be provided to the delinquent officer to defend his case. Further the delinquent officer is also required to be provided with the copies of the documents which the department is likely to use against the Petitioner and which form part of the articles of charge. After all, fairness and transparency are the backbone of any proceeding whether it is judicial or quashi-judicial in nature. Page 4 of 5 // 5 // 7. In view of the aforesaid analysis and keeping in view the factual background of the present case, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Parties-Bank to provide copies of the documents which they want to use against the Petitioner and which forms a part of the articles charge against the present Petitioner. Further, they are also directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner before passing a final order in the disciplinary proceeding. The Petitioner is directed to approach the Disciplinary Authority for an early conclusion of the pending proceeding. Further, it is directed that if the relevant documents, basing upon which the article of charges have been prepared, have not yet been provided to the Petitioner, then the same shall be provided as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order. In such event, the Petitioner shall file his written note defence within two weeks thereafter. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Debasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK. Date: 27-Feb-2024 12:40:59 (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Page 5 of 5