The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.29308 of 2022 Yameswar Mohapatra …. Petitioner In person Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Odisha & Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA Mr. A.K. Rath, Adv. (for O.P. NO.5-Bank) CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. 05. 1. This matter ORDER 23.09.2025 taken up is through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Pursuant to order dt.18.09.2025, learned counsel appearing for the Bank files an additional affidavit along with various documents in Court. The same be kept on record. Copy of the affidavit is also provided to Mr.Y. Mohapatra-Petitioner in Court. // 2 // 4. With regard to withholding a sum of Rs.7,44,290/- from the Gross salary of the Petitioner so reflected in Annexure-8 communication dt.23.10.2019, learned counsel appearing for the Bank contended that in the Proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dt.24.01.2012 under Annexure-12, the Appointment Sub-Committee who happens to be the
Decision
Disciplinary Authority of the Petitioner disposed of the Proceeding with passing of the order on 20.12.2018 under Annexure-A/4 to the Additional affidavit. As per the said order, Petitioner was allowed salary on full average pay from 01.11.2011 to 31.01.2018 and Petitioner held liable of the excess amount paid to three (3) numbers of ex-employees. 4.1. It is contended by Mr.A.K Rath, learned counsel appearing for the Bank that in terms of the decision taken against the Petitioner by the Appointment Sub- Committee in its Proceeding dt.13.11.2018, since Petitioner was held liable for excess amount paid to three (3) numbers of ex-employees, the amount in question has been withhold from his Gross salary. It is also contended that such an order was never assailed by the Petitioner even though it was communicated to him. 5. To the submission made by Mr.A.K Rath, learned counsel appearing for the Bank, Mr.Y. Mohapatra- Petitioner contended that since the Proceeding was Page 2 of 6 // 3 // initiated by the Secretary of the Bank vide Memorandum dt.24.01.2012, the Appointment Sub- Committee is not competent to pass the final order while disposing the Proceeding vide order dt.20.12.2018, basing on the decision taken by the Appointment Sub-Committee on 13.11.2018. 5.1. It is contended that since the proceeding was initiated by the Secretary of the Bank, Appointment Sub-Committee though is the Disciplinary Authority, but it cannot proceed with such a proceeding which has been initiated by an incompetent authority. It is also contended that the Committee of Management represented by the President though is the Appellate Authority against such order passed by the Appointment Sub-Committee, but the Appointment Sub-Committee which took the decision to impose the punishment in its proceeding dt. 13.11.2018 was presided over by the President of the Committee of Management. It is accordingly contended that since such a decision to impose the punishment was taken in the meeting presided by the President on 13.11.2018, who happens to be the Appellate Authority, Petitioner was deprived from preferring any appeal against the impugned order dt.20.12.2018. 5.2. It is also contended that while considering the prayer of the Petitioner so made before the Secretary of the Bank on 24.01.2012 under Annexure-12, the then Page 3 of 6 // 4 // President of the Bank issued a formal direction on the Secretary to drop the proceeding and to release the salary of the Petitioner. But on the face of such direction issued by the then President of the Bank, the Proceeding was never dropped. 5.3. Making all these submissions, Mr.Y. Mohapatra, Petitioner contended that the ground on which the amount has been withheld from the Gross salary of the Petitioner, Pursuant to the decision of the Appointment Sub-Committee, is not legally sustainable. 6. To the submission made by Mr.Y Mohapatra- Petitioner, Mr.A.K Rath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank made further submission and contended that the Proceeding in fact was initiated at the instance of the Appointment Sub-Committee, but the Memorandum was only issued by the Secretary of the Bank vide Memorandum dt.20.01.2012. Accordingly, it is contended that no illegality can be found with such initiation of the Proceeding. 7. Having heard the Petitioner in person and Mr. A.K. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. NO.5-Bank, considering the submission made and the contention raised by the Petitioner on the last date that he confines his prayer so far as recovery of Rs.7,44,290/- from his Gross salary is concerned, this Court finds that the Proceeding was initiated by the Secretary of the Bank vide Memorandum dt.24.01.2012 Page 4 of 6 // 5 // and Additional proceeding also by the Secretary of the Bank on 16.04.2012. 7.1. Since it is not disputed that the Appointment Sub- Committee is the Disciplinary Authority, as per the considered view of this Court, such a proceeding could not have been initiated by the Secretary. Even though a submission was made that such a proceeding was initiated at the instance of the Appointment Sub- Committee by the Secretary, but this Court after going through the Memorandum, no where finds that the Secretary of the Bank was authorized by the Appointment Sub-Committee to initiate such a proceeding against the Petitioner. 7.2. It is also found from the record and the additional affidavit filed in Court today, that the order of punishment by making the Petitioner liable for the excess amount paid to three (3) members of ex- employee was imposed on the Petitioner basing on the decision taken by the Appointment Sub-Committee on 13.11.2018 vide Annexure-A/2 to the affidavit. But as found, the said meeting was presided over by the President of the Committee of Management, who happens to be the Appellate Authority of the Petitioner. 7.3. In view of such material irregularity with regard to initiation of the proceeding and its disposal, this court is inclined to quash the proceedings initiated against the Petitioner on 24.01.2012 and the Additional Page 5 of 6 // 6 // proceeding initiated on 16.04.2012. While quashing the proceedings and the order of punishment so imposed on him, this court directs the Bank to release the withheld salary of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs.7,44,290/-. 7.4. Since it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Bank that the amount in question is already deposited in the Petitioner’s account, but because of the lien created, it has not yet been released, this Court directs the Bank to release the same forthwith in favour of the Petitioner. 7.5. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. sangita (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: AUTHENTICATION OF ORDER Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 26-Sep-2025 18:54:19 Page 6 of 6