The High Court

Case Details

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.23906 of 2025 ..... Mangal Marndi Petitioner Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate Odisha Grameen Bank, Gandamunda, BBSR & Ors. -versus- ..... Opposite Parties Mr. K.M.H. Niamati, Advocate THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM: ORDER 24.10.2025 Order No.06 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. K.M.H. Niamati, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party-Bank. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging the initiation of the proceeding against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dtd.01.07.2024 under Annexure-2. 4. It is the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that in view of the provisions contained under Regulation 46(2) of the Odisha Gramya Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulation, 2018, no departmental proceeding shall be initiated in respect of an event, if more than 4 years time lapsed after the event. 4.1. Placing reliance of the aforesaid provision, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner, all the events relates back to the period 20.06.2012 to 30.09.2015, which are admittedly prior to 4 years of the date of retirement of the Petitioner, in view of the clear Page 1 of 8. provisions contained under the aforesaid Regulation, the proceeding is not maintainable. 4.2. It is also contended that the staff accountability policy issued by the Bank on 29.04.2017 under Annexure-17 cannot be made applicable to the case in hand in view of the clear provisions contained under the aforesaid Regulation. It is further contended that the Regulation framed by the Bank under Annexure-15 having been framed in terms of the provisions contained under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, it has got superseding power over any policy or guideline issued by the Bank at any point of time. In support of his aforesaid submission, reliance was placed to the following decisions:- (i) Union of India & Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2013) 16 SCC 147 (ii) Ajaya Kumar Das Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (2011) 11 SCC 136 4.3. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 58 to 62 of the Judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Aggarwal has held as follows:- “58. A Constitution Bench of this Court while dealing with a similar issue in respect of executive instructions in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1967 SC 1910] , held : (AIR p. 1914, para 7) “7. … It is true that the Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular point the Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed.” Page 2 of 8. 59. The law laid down above has consistently been followed and it is a settled proposition of law that an authority cannot issue orders/office memorandum/executive instructions in contravention of the statutory rules. However, instructions can be issued only to supplement the statutory rules but not to supplant it. Such instructions should be subservient to the statutory provisions. (Vide Union of India v. Majji Jangamayya [(1977) 1 SCC 606 : 1977 SCC (L&S) 191] , P.D. Aggarwal v. State of U.P. [(1987) 3 SCC 622 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 310 : (1987) 4 ATC 272] , Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India [(1989) 2 SCC 541 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 375 : (1989) 10 ATC 378 : AIR 1990 SC 166] , C. Rangaswamaiah v. Karnataka Lokayukta [(1998) 6 SCC 66 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1448] and Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots’ Assn. of India v. DG of Civil Aviation [(2011) 5 SCC 435 : AIR 2011 SC 2220] .) 60. Similarly, a Constitution Bench of this Court, in Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India [(1998) 2 SCC 109 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 514 : AIR 1998 SC 431] , held that the executive instructions have binding force provided the same have been issued to fill up the gap between the statutory provisions and are not inconsistent with the said provisions. 61. In Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi v. Syndicate Bank [(1991) 3 SCC 219 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 965 : (1992) 19 ATC 639 : AIR 1991 SC 1507] this Court has explained the scope of circulars issued by the Ministry observing that it is binding on the officers of the department, particularly the recommendations made by CVC. 62. In State of U.P. v. Dharmander Prasad