The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 23019 of 2024 ..... Aparna Nayak Petitioner Mr. S.K. Nanda, Advocate -versus- ..... Asst. G.M. And Zonal Manager cum Disciplinary Authority, Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Berhampur, Ganjam & Anr. CORAM: Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Dey, Advocate (Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2) THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 24.09.2025 Order No.08 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia 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(s):- (i) Quash the impugned IA’s brief/findings relating to the Chagesheet in the matter of DE, dated 16.08.2024, submitted by Opp. Party No.2 to the Opp. Party No.1, which is in violation of CVC Guidelines, Rules and Regulations in the field the enquiry, as well as the intimation dated 23.08.2024 (sent through e-mail dated 27.08.2024 to the petitioner) by the opposite party No.1 accepting the Enquiry Report and directing the petitioner (CSO) to give her comments on the IA’s findings, both at Annexure-33 series; Page 1 of 8. (ii) Be further pleased to quash the appointment of the Opposite party No.2 as the Inquiring Authority vide Annexure-7 and the Opposite Party No.1 be directed to appoint some other person as the Inquiring Authority, in view of the fact that the Opposite Party No.2 has shown highly interestedness in conducting the inquiry against the petitioner by exceeding the jurisdiction and authority provided under the Regulations (iii) Be further pleased to Quash the entire DE proceeding initiated much after the prescribed one month after the suspension as per the Indian Bank Manual of Instructions XVII Vigilance Administration, 2018, at annexure- 5 and not completion of the DE in prescribed time limit in violation of CVC Guidelines at annexure 35 series; And any other order/direction as would be deemed necessary in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as would be deemed just and proper under the extant Regulation at annexure-1 and befitting to the Rules of Natural Justice; And for this act of kindness, as in duty bound, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that after initiation of the proceeding vide Memorandum dtd.10.08.2023 under Annexure-6 and without providing the documents, basing on which the charges have been framed, when the disciplinary authority appointed the Inquiry Officer vide order dt.12.09.2023, Petitioner made a prayer before the Enquiry Officer to provide her the documents vide letter dtd.10.10.2023 under Annexure-11. However, Petitioner was not provided with all the documents save and except a few and with an observation by the Enquiry Officer vide letter dt.07.11.2023 under Page 2 of 8. Annexure-12 that all those documents are not required for the purpose of filing of the written note of defence. 4.1. It is contended that in absence of all those documents, Petitioner though could not file her written note of defence, but the enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry. It is contended that since all the documents basing on which the charges were framed against the Petitioner vide the Memorandum were never supplied, Petitioner was seriously prejudiced in the enquiry. Not only that, the enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer in a haste and the enquiry was completed on 21.12.2023, with a direction on the Petitioner to submit the written brief for the purpose of preparation and submission of the enquiry report. 4.2. It is contended that Petitioner on being so harassed and prejudiced in the proceeding and by the Enquiry Officer, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 3809 of 2024 with a prayer to direct the enquiry officer to extend opportunity to the Petitioner for appropriate presentation of the case in the proceeding in question. A further prayer was also made to provide her the other required documents, which were never provided to the Petitioner by the Bank in terms of Annexure-11. Considering the plea made in
Decision
the writ petition, this Court while disposing the writ petition, vide order dtd.22.02.2024 issued the following direction so contained in Para 7 of the order:- “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 Page 3 of 8. 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.” 4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in terms of the order passed by this Court and which is not disputed, the remaining documents were provided to the Petitioner by the Bank on 17.05.2024. It is contended that since the remaining documents in terms of the order passed by this Court on 22.02.2024 were provided to the Petitioner only on 17.05.2024, which is not disputed by the Bank, Petitioner is required to file her written note of defence by taking all her stand and the enquiry has to start de novo. It is accordingly contended that Opp. Party-Bank be directed to allow the Petitioner to file the written note of defence taking help of all the documents, now provided to her on 17.05.2024 and the Bank be further directed to cause de novo enquiry with appointment of a fresh enquiry officer, if the enquiry officer so appointed earlier is not available at present, with quashing of the enquiry report so submitted on 16.08.2024 and consequential letter issued on 23.08.2024 under Annexure-33 series. Page 4 of 8. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Bank on the other hand contended that basing on the documents earlier provided to the Petitioner considering her request under Annexure-11, Petitioner participated in the enquiry without any objection. After completion of the enquiry on 21.12.2023, Petitioner when was directed to file her written brief in order to enable the Enquiry Officer to submit the enquiry report, Petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3809 of 2024. 5.1. The Bank though provided the remaining documents on 17.05.2024 basing on the order passed by this Court on 22.02.2024, but Petitioner instead of filing the written brief has again approached this Court in the present writ petition challenging the enquiry report submitted on 16.08.2024. It is further contended that such documents were provided to the Petitioner on 17.05.2024 with abundant caution and to see that the proceeding is not vitiated. 5.2. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner has now been provided with all the documents, Petitioner be directed to submit her reply to the show-cause issued on 23.08.2024, under Annexure- 33 series. 6. To the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Bank, learned counsel for the Petitioner made further submission contending inter alia that all the documents as prayed for in Annexure-11, were never provided to the Petitioner, prior to 17.05.2024 and Petitioner on compelling circumstances participated in the enquiry. Not only that without providing all the documents as prayed for, the Enquiry Officer so appointed on 12.09.2023 under Annexure-8, after refusing to provide all the documents vide his letter dt.07.11.2023 under Annexure-12, completed the enquiry on Page 5 of 8. 21.12.2023 and with a direction on the Petitioner to submit her written brief for the purpose of submission of the enquiry report vide letter dt.16.01.2024 under Annexure-20. 6.1. Not only that basing on the order passed by this court, Petitioner though was provided with all the documents on 17.05.2024, but prior to submission of the written brief and the request made by the Petitioner in her letter dt.23.05.2024 under Annexure-28, the Enquiry Officer submitted the report on 16.08.2024 under Annexure-33 by holding the Petitioner guilty of the charges. Petitioner accordingly when was issued with the 1st show-cause along with the enquiry report vide letter dt.23.08.2024 under Annexure-33 series and thereafter a reminder on 05.09.2024 under Annexure-35, Petitioner challenging such illegal action on the Opp. Party-Bank is before this Court in the present writ petition. 6.2. It is contended that because of the supply of all the documents on 17.05.2024, Petitioner is required to file her written notes of defence, which was never filed. It is accordingly contended that since the enquiry has proceeded with submission of the report on 16.08.2024, basing on the available material and all the documents were only provided to the Petitioner on 17.05.2024, the enquiry is completely vitiated. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner accordingly contended that Petitioner be permitted to file her written notes of defence taking help of all those documents now provided to her on 17.05.2024 and the proceeding be allowed to continue from the stage of submission of the written note of defence. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner Page 6 of 8. while working in the Bank, a proceeding was initiated against her vide Memorandum dtd.10.08.2023 under Annexure-6. It is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the Bank that on the face of the request made by the Petitioner on 10.10.2023 under Annexure-11, all the documents were not provided to the Petitioner. Even though basing on the documents so provided, Petitioner participated in the enquiry, but pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3809 of 2024, the remaining documents were provided to the Petitioner on 17.05.2024. 7.1. Since in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3809 of 2024, the remaining documents were provided to the Petitioner only on 17.05.2024 which is not disputed, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner is required to file her written note of defence by taking help of all the documents now available with her and the enquiry is to start de novo. It is found that in absence of filing of the written note of defence the Enquiry Officer appointed vide order dtd.12.09.2023, not only completed the enquiry on 21.12.2023 but also filed the enquiry report on 16.08.2024 prior to receipt of the written brief from the Petitioner in terms of the letter dtd.17.05.2024 so issued under Annexure-27. 7.2. Therefore, this Court while disposing the writ petition, permits the Petitioner to file her written note of defence to the charges framed against her in Memorandum dtd.10.08.2023 under Annexure-6 within a period of six (6) weeks from today. On her filing of the written note of defence, the Bank shall appoint a fresh enquiry officer, if the earlier enquiry officer is not available at present, and conduct the enquiry de novo by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and decide the proceeding in accordance Page 7 of 8. with law as expeditiously as possible. This Court however expresses no opinion on the merits and contentions raised by either of the Parties. 8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-Oct-2025 15:56:17 Page 8 of 8.