JUSTICE v. NARASINGH DATE OF FINAL HEARING
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.10810 of 2004 In the matter of an application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Shyama Sundar Das …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Swain, Advocate -versus- …. Opposite Parties 1. The Chairman, Disciplinary authority, Puri Gramya Bank, Head Quarter Pipili, At/P.O/P.S- Pipili, Dist- Puri, Orissa 2. The Board of Directors (Puri Gramya Bank), represented though Narayan Chandra Pani, Asst. General Manger, NABARD, office At-Puri Bus Stand out gate at Sarbodaya Nagar, Bangali Lane, P.O- Puri-2, P.S- Kumbharapada, Dist- Puri 3. Neelachala Gramya Page 1 of 21 Bank represented through it’s Chairman, Head Office, Plot No. A/19, Nilakantha Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Orissa 4. Odisha Grameen Bank represented through its Chairman, At- Gadamunda, P.O- Khandagiri, Dist- Khurda 5. Board of Directors, Odisha Grameen Bank represented through its Chairman, At- Gadamunda, P.O- Khandagiri, Dist- Khurda Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH DATE OF FINAL HEARING : 18.08.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT : 18.11.2025 V. Narasingh, J. 1. Heard Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties. Page 2 of 21 2. The Petitioner, who was the Branch Manager of Satapada Branch of erstwhile Puri Gramya Bank, assails the order dated 03.02.2004 passed by the Opposite Party No.1- The Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Puri Gramya Bank, vide Annexure-2 imposing punishment of dismissal from service and
Legal Reasoning
the confirmation thereof by the Appellate Authority- Opposite Party No.2, the Board of Directors vide order dated 31.08.2004 under Annexure-5. 3. It is apt to note that during the pendency of the matter, the status of Puri Gramya Bank was changed and the consolidated cause title to the said effect filed on 09.07.2025, is taken on record. 4. The undisputed facts germane for adjudication are stated as under; The Petitioner while continuing as Branch Manager of Satapada Branch of erstwhile Puri Gramaya Bank was alleged to have committed serious and grave misconduct which resulted in financial loss to the Bank thereby violating Regulation Page 3 of 21 17 and 19 of Puri Gramya Bank Staff Service Regulation Act 1980 for which, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. The following were the charges; “Charge No.1- You have converted 116 numbers of K.C.C. (Kharif Crops Credit) loans to M.T.C. loan due to Super Cyclone and additional loan of equal amount was also released under K.C.C. to the same loanees for Rabi Crop whereas there was no scope of Rabi Crop in the area for which (area) the loans were financed. Your above actions are not in consonance with the laid down instruction of the Bank and by such of your act you have put a huge amount of Bank’s money in jeopardy. Charge No 2 - You have financed the loans as mentioned in Charge no. 1 without observing the security norms i.e. no security was obtained for the loan where security ought to have been taken. You above action are in conflict with the laid down instruction of the bank and by such of your action you have put a great deal of Bank’s money in jeopardy. Charge No.3 - You have sanctioned/ disbursed more than one loan in favour of one borrower or his family members when the previous/ first loan is a till outstanding. Page 4 of 21 Your above mentioned actions are in serious conflict with laid down instruction of the bank and by such of your action you have put a great deal of banks money in jeopardy which is detrimental to the interest of the bank. Charge No.4 – You have sanctioned/disbursed the following SGSY loans for which no subsidy has been obtained. Your above mentioned actions are not in consonance with the laid down instructions of the bank and by such of your action you have put a great deal of bank’s money in jeopardy which is detrimental to the interest of the bank. Charge No.5 – The following working capital loans were sanctioned/ disbursed by you but all such loans are now N.P.A. appraisal All the above mentioned loans have become N.P.A. which go on to speak that there was no proper while sanctioning/disbursing the loan and by such act you have not shown due diligence to protect the interest of the Bank and have not in put a great deal of Bank’s money jeopardy.” you by 5. Oral as well as documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the Petitioner-delinquent as well as the Bank-Opposite Parties. It is not disputed that, Page 5 of 21 though during the enquiry the Petitioner was given the option of engaging a defence assistant, he chose not to do so; rather, he preferred his own shoulders to defend himself. On evaluation of the materials on record, including the statements of witnesses, the enquiry officer submitted his report, finding the Petitioner guilty of charges 1, 2, 3, and 5 whereas, charge No. 4 was held to be not proved. 6. It is agreed at the Bar that the service conditions of the Petitioner are governed by Puri Gramya Bank Staff Service Regulation Act, 1980. 7. The enquiry officer came to a finding that the Petitioner-delinquent (charge-sheeted officer) violated Regulation 17 and 19 of the Puri Gramya Bank Staff Service Regulation Act, 19801. 8. The Petitioner was given an opportunity to submit representation against the finding of the Enquiry Office and in pursuance thereof he submitted the same. 1 Puri Gramya Bank Staff Service Regulation Act, 1980 Page 6 of 21 9. The Disciplinary Authority, on examination of the materials on record and considering the defence of the Petitioner, concurred with the finding of guilt of the Petitioner in respect of charges 1, 2, 3, and 5 and, since it entailed the punishment of dismissal from service, issued a show cause notice to the Petitioner giving an opportunity to submit his reply on the proposed punishment of dismissal from service, as it was the considered view of the Disciplinary Authority that the charges were very serious in nature amounting to serious misconduct resulting in loss to the Bank to the tune of Rs.53,00,000/-. Thereafter, on consideration of the show cause, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of dismissal dated 03.02.2004 at Annexure-2, which the Petitioner challenged by filing an appeal before the Board of Directors which, stood rejected by order dated 31.08.2004 under Annexure-5, and assailing the orders at Annexure-2 and Annexure-5 respectively of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Page 7 of 21 Appellate Authority, the present Writ Petition has been filed, as noted above. 10.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Swain assails the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority inter alia on the ground of violation of natural justice, fair play and also on the ground of proportionality of punishment. To fortify his submission, learned counsel for the Petitioner relies on the following judgments; i. Bhubanananda Sethy vs. The Chairman & Disciplinary Authority, Puri Gramya Bank & others2 ii. B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India3 iii. Uttar Pradesh State Sugar Corporation Ltd. vs. Kamal Swaroop Tondon4 iv. Satya Kumar Nanda vs. State of Odisha & Others5 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the Bank, Mr. Das referring the recitals in the counter, additional counter, and materials on record, refutes such submission and states that evaluated, keeping in 2 Bhubanananda Sethy v. The Chairman & Disciplinary Authority, Puri Gramya Bank, 2001 (II) OLR 692 3 B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 484 4 Uttar Pradesh State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Kamal Swaroop Tondon, 2008(2)SCC 41 5 Satya Kumar Nanda v. State of Odisha, 2023 (I) OLR 624 Page 8 of 21 view the well-defined contours of this Court for interference in a departmental proceeding, the matter does not merit consideration. 12. Allegation of violation of the principles of natural justice and the procedural irregularities as alleged are without any substance. The Petitioner filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit. 13. During the pendency of the matter, because of the amalgamation of the Puri Gramya Bank and its renaming as Neelachala Gramya Bank, represented through its Chairman–Opposite Party No.3, certain additional grounds were sought to be introduced by way of amendment vide I.A. No.11414 of 2025 styled as “An application for amendment of cause title for change of name of Bank of Opp. Party No.4 and 5 and for addition of some necessary facts in this
Decision
respect at the end of Para-10 of the writ petition”. 14. Additional counter affidavit was filed by Opposite Party Nos.4 and 5 (Bank), which is primarily related to the amendments to the writ petition sought Page 9 of 21 for, and also in response thereto, an additional rejoinder affidavit was filed by the Petitioner. The Opposite Party–Bank also filed a reply affidavit dated 20.04.2024 in response to the rejoinder affidavit filed by Petitioner, and thereafter, the Petitioner filed a reply affidavit to the said affidavit dated 20.04.2024. 15. It is trite law that the writ Courts are not supposed to act as super disciplinary authorities. In this context reference can be respectfully made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Deputy General Manager and Others Vrs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava6. For convenience of ready reference the relevant paragraph of the said Judgment is extracted hereunder; “xxx xxx xxx its constitutional court while 28. The exercising judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the jurisdiction of 6 Deputy General Manager and Others v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, (2021) 2 SCC 612 Page 10 of 21 there i.e. where departmental proceedings enquiry except in a case of mala fides or perversity is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. xxx xxx xxx” 16. On an analysis of each of the charges, the Enquiry Officer has given detailed findings, duly evaluating the stand of the Petitioner and that of the Opposite Party-Bank with reference to the relevant circulars on which much reliance was placed by the Petitioner in the departmental proceeding and by the learned counsel for the Petitioner before this Court. 17. The significance of not finding the Petitioner guilty qua charge No.4 also cannot be lost sight of in the background of the allegation of perverse appreciation. It goes to indicate that on a cogent analysis, the Enquiry Officer has dropped the charge which stood the scrutiny of the Disciplinary Authority. Page 11 of 21 On a bare perusal of the order of the Disciplinary Authority, it is evidently clear that each of the charges and the finding of the Enquiry Officer has been meticulously analysed and after undertaking such exercise, the Disciplinary Authority concurred with the finding of the Enquiry Officer that charges 1, 2, 3, and 5 are proved and, considering the gravity of the charges held that the punishment to be imposed is one of dismissal. 18. This Court carefully perused the materials on record relating to the imputation of charges and the defence of the delinquent-Petitioner and the findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority, and on such perspicuous analysis, this Court did not find any infirmity qua such findings. Disciplinary Authority In this context, it is apt to refer to the analysis and findings by the disciplinary authority in respect of each of the charges recorded in the departmental proceedings, which run thus; Page 12 of 21 “xxx xxx xxx that Imputation No.1 xxx xxx xxx In your defence mainly you have relied on DE- 1, a circular (Adv-3/2000 dated 01.02.2000) on relief measures to be implemented in the cyclone affected areas stating discretionary power for sanction of future crop loans, scale of finance, security norms etc. are applicable without reference to such MTC loans. Your contention is untenable because the situation in these cases is entirely different from the types of loans referred to in DE-1, the later being applicable only to cases where the KCC limit is computed for both Kharit and Rabi crops. No circular or guideline permits you to grant loan for Rabi Crop in a place where Rabi Crops are not feasible. Hence I have to discard your defence On that point I fully agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer as sufficient evidences have been adduced establishing your misconduct which is also corroborated by GM circular No. 16/99 dated 02.03.99. The charge is conclusively established. xxx xxx xxx Imputation No.2 xxx xxx As per Head Office circular No.GM/25/99 dated 23.3.99 read with that of GM/16/99 dated 02.03.99, agricultural advances like crop loans, KCC etc. beyond Rs.25,000/- need to be secured by mortgage of land and third party xxx Page 13 of 21 to guarantee besides hypothecation of standing crops. You have utterly disregarded the above instructions the detriment of bank’s interest, while sanctioning these 116 additional loans ostensibly for Rabi crop. This has been amply proved by ME-2, DE-1 and DE-2 etc. Your taking shelter under DE-1 for sanctioning these loans without security is not tenable because the borrowers were eligible to avail loans for Kharif crop only to the extent of the KCC limits originally fixed. I fully agree with the findings of the enquiry officer and hold that the imputation is based on facts and the charge stands proved. xxx xxx xxx xxx Imputation No.3 xxx xxx It is brought on record that you disbursed more than one loan to the same borrower or his family members by violating the circular No.GM/1/93 dtd.13.1.93 (ME-VI). Although you have admitted sanction and disbursement of these loans listed in ME VIII, you have quoted (circular to No.GM/CMS/Misc./248/98 justify your action. But the circular does not convey the assertion made by you. You have for your interpreted the circular wrongly defence. The further security based finance to old borrowers under Stagnant Advances and Written Off accounts who are still in business after liquidating their old loans. Hence DE II is neither relevant nor circular envisages dtd.14.7.98) in DE-III para a Page 14 of 21 tenable as a justification of your action in sanctioning the above loans. sanctioned loans were Except the 8 loans viz; IRDP-3/98 5/98, SGSY/AATL-1/2000, RA-10/2000, 30/2001 & SCFCC-9/2000, 21/2000 & SL(W/C)37/2000, which were sanctioned by other Managers, the and remaining disbursed by you in violation of the bank’s instructions. In the circumstances I fully agree with the findings of the enquiry officer that the charges relating to the imputations are proved beyond reasonable doubt. Entire outstanding in the above accounts to the extent of Rs13.25 interest has become lacs plus undebited difficult of recovery and the bank will sustain a financial loss to that extent. I hold you personally responsible for this. xxx xxx xxx Imputation No.5 xxx xxx xxx The documents adduced in connection with the imputation has revealed that as many as 109 (W/C) loans have been sanctioned/disbursed by you and the O/s in all the above accounts have become Non Performing Assets. You have not appraised the proposal with regard to activities, economics of the scheme, credit worthiness of the borrowers etc. This has seriously jeopardised Bank’s interest and the loans have become NPA. Your defence contention that you had refinanced the above parties by closing the earlier loans to make the branch profitable cannot be accepted. You Page 15 of 21 have admitted that except seven accounts which are closed, the remaining 102 accounts have become NPA. Under these circumstances I agree with the findings of the E.O. that the charges levelled against you in this regard stand fully established. By your indiscriminate lending in the above manner you have caused loss of Rs. 12.30 lacs plus undebited interest to the Bank and you are held responsible for the same. xxx xxx xxx The proved charges are very serious in nature, involving serious misconduct and huge loss to the bank, to the tune of Rs. 53.00 lacs. The quantum of loss will touch one crore rupees when the undebited interest till date is taken into account. During the show-cause hearing no convincing reason was put forward to reduce the proposed punishment. I have not omitted to peruse your past record of service in the Bank. In the absence of any extenuating circumstances and independent of your past record, I as the Competent Authority pass this original order imposing the penalty of DISMISSAL from the Bank’s Service without notice in terms of Regulation 38 (1)(b)(v) of Purv Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation 2001 as amended up to date to meet the ends of Justice. xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasized) Page 16 of 21 19. It is borne out from the order of the appellate authority that they recorded the findings independently in respect of charge nos.1 and 2. It is apt to note that since the Chairman was the Disciplinary Authority, he did not participate in the proceeding, which finds place in the impugned order of the Appellate Authority, Board of Directors. The same reads thus:— “ xxx xxx xxx Chairman, being the disciplinary authority, did not attend this discussion. xxx xxx xxx” 20. On perusal of the order passed by the Board of Directors, it can be seen that the Appellate Authority has specifically analyzed the accusation and defence relating to charge nos.1 and 2, keeping in view the nature of crop (Rabi/Kharif) which ought to have weighed with the delinquent officer in giving the loans. Taking into account that the action and Page 17 of 21 inaction of the delinquent-Petitioner has resulted in loss to the tune of about Rs.53,00,000/-, which is likely to run into crores taking into account the interest component, affirmed the finding of dismissal. Appellate Authority The findings of the Appellate Authority are culled out hereunder for convenience of ready reference: xxx xxx xxx “xxx Charge No. 1: The appellant had sanctioned 116 nos. of crop loans under Rabi crop in the area where there was no scope for Rabi crop cultivation. xxx xxx In view of the evidences available, E.O. has rightly proved the charge and we are of the view that the acceptance of the findings of EO by the DA requires no interference. In view of the above the decision of DA is held as correct. Charge No.2: The appellant has financed 116 nos. of loans without observing the security norms. xxx xxx xxx We have also gone through the representation made by the appellant in response to findings of Enquiry Report and his representation in response to show cause notice. While in the Page 18 of 21 former the appellant has agitated that EO has gone beyond the facts of the charge sheet, in the later he banks upon the DE-I produced by him during the enquiry proceeding. We reject both the contention of the appellant, inasmuch as while alleging that EO has gone beyond the facts of the charge, the appellant has not been able to produce any proof which could have led us to a different view. And coming to the matter of DE-I we are of the opinion that EO has made the right interpretation and nothing more can be added to that. In view of the above stated premises we are in complete agreement with the action of DA who has accepted the findings of E.O. xxx xxx” (Emphasized) Regarding the other charges, the appellate xxx authority accepted the findings of the disciplinary authority. 21. It was urged by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, during the course of submission, that his superiors had a role in sanctioning the loans. But, no action has been initiated against them. Hence, on that score, this Court should take a lenient view. 22. It is trite that such negative equality cannot be claimed. And, in the given facts, on the basis of Page 19 of 21 recommendation made by the Petitioner, who was the Manager and was at the ground level, the loans were sanctioned by the superior authorities. Hence, the bogey of discrimination is untenable. 23. On consideration of rival submissions and perusal of the materials on record relating to the imputation of charges and the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority referred to hereinabove, this Court is not persuaded to hold that there is any irregularity or illegality in the procedure followed in conducting the disciplinary proceeding. 24. The findings of the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority, and the Appellate Authority being based on cogent reasoning do not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its plenary power. Keeping in view the scope of interference by this Court, as stated in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajai Kumar Srivastava(Supra)6, considering that the Petitioner was working in a bank, and taking Page 20 of 21 into account the nature of the allegation which has been established in a departmental proceeding duly conducted, this Court does not find any merit in the submission that the punishment of dismissal in the case at hand can be said to be disproportionate qua the charges to warrant interference. 25. The writ petition being devoid of merit stands rejected. Costs made easy. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 18th November, 2025/Santoshi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 24-Nov-2025 20:02:06 Page 21 of 21