Page No.# 1/8 vs Olympia Roy And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 9695 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/8 vs Olympia Roy And Anr on 18 December, 2025

                                                                      Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010144002024




                                                           2025:GAU-AS:17582-DB

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                  Case No. : WA/262/2024

            THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AND 2 ORS
            REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
            CORPORATE CENTRE, IV FLOOR, STATE BANK BHAWAN, MADAME CAMA
            ROAD, MUMBAI-400021.

            2: THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
             STATE BANK OF INDIA
             LOCAL HEAD OFFICE
             DISPUR
             GHY-6
             DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM

            3: GENERAL MANAGER (NW-II)
             STATE BANK OF INDIA
             LOCAL HEAD OFFICE
             DISPUR
             GHY-6
             DIST KAMRUP M ASSA

            VERSUS

            OLYMPIA ROY AND ANR
            W/O LATE ANIRBAN ROY, HOUSE NO-42, PANDAV NAGAR, ADABARI
            TINIALI, GUWAHATI-781012, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.

            2:SRI ANINDIT ROY
             S/O- ANIRBAN ROY
             H.NO. 42
             PANDAV NAGAR
            ADABARI TINIALI
             GHY- 12
             KAMRUP M ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. M K CHOUDHURY, MR. M SARMA,MR P BHARADWAJ
                                                                      Page No.# 2/8


Advocate for the Respondent : , MR G GOSWAMI,FOR CAVEATOR




                                     BEFORE
                          HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

                                        ORDER

Date : 18.12.2025 (Arun Dev Choudhury, J)

1. The present intra-court appeal is filed assailing judgment and order dated 13-05-2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in WPC 4647-2019. The challenge made in the writ petition was against a disciplinary proceeding initiated by a charge-sheet dated 14-12-2012, the Inquiry Report dated 24-12- 2015 and a Penalty Order of removal from service of the deceased delinquent with forfeiture of gratuity dated 16-05-2016 and also the rejection of appeal by the appellate authority dated 02-12-2016.

2. During the pendency of the writ proceeding, the delinquent expired on 5-11-2023 and was duly substituted by his legal heirs who are the appellants before this court.

3. The deceased employee was an Assistant Manager of Accounts in the Koupati Branch of the Respondent-Bank when the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him under Charge-sheet dated 14-12-2012. On completion of the inquiry, a Page No.# 3/8

second show-cause notice was issued by the disciplinary authority, whereby the findings of guilt of the appellant were already concurred with. Though a reply was filed by the delinquent, an order of penalty dated 24-09-2013 was imposed by which, the deceased delinquent was dismissed from service and his gratuity was forfeited.

4. The departmental appeal of the deceased delinquent being rejected, he had approached this court by filing WPC 3941-2014, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the impugned penalty with a liberty to the employer to have a de novo inquiry.

5. Pursuant to such determination, a new Inquiry Officer and Presiding Officers were appointed and a report dated 24-12-2015 was submitted. A second show-cause notice was issued to the deceased delinquent on 31-12-2015, which was also agreed to by the disciplinary authority and five out of six allegations were held to be proved and one allegation was held to be partially proved.

6. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that no witnesses were examined, though one witness was subsequently named as a witness, however, he was not examined and the appellant did not have the chance to cross- examine the aforesaid witness.

7. Accordingly, it was contended before the learned Page No.# 4/8

Single Judge that the employer found the charge to be proved without examination of any witnesses. The other contention raised before the learned Single Judge was that the second show-cause notice had become a mere formality as the delinquent was deprived of a fair opportunity to make an endeavour to convince the disciplinary authority to take a view other than the views expressed by the Inquiry Officer as they already agreed to the findings of the Inquiry Officer.

8. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition noticing that the earlier direction passed in WPC 3941-2014 was not adhered to, rather similar error was committed by the disciplinary authority inasmuch as the disciplinary authority while concurring with the findings of the Inquiry report and issuing the show-cause notice, acted contrary to the established procedure of law as laid down in Managing Director, ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar AIR 1994 SC 1074.

9. The learned Single Judge also took note of the disciplinary authority and the statement on oath made before the learned Single Judge that when the disciplinary authority accepts the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in order of imposing punishment. Such stand was held to be a flawed stand as the disciplinary authority before coming into finding of agreement with the report of inquiry officer is effectively required to have the views of delinquent by giving him adequate opportunity when the inquiry Page No.# 5/8

is not done by the disciplinary authority himself or in a situation when delinquent suggests not to respond to the second show- cause notice.

10. As regards forfeiture of gratuity, the court concluded that when admittedly the loss quantified in the proceeding was admitted to be probable loss, therefore in absence of any certainty of loss caused under section 4 (6) of the payment of Gratuity Act could not have been made applicable.

11. Accordingly the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition as indicated herein above, we are in total agreement with the findings of the learned Single Judge.

12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully examined the record.

13. At the outset, it must be noted that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters, though limited, certainly extends to examining whether the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and procedure prescribed by law. Where the disciplinary authority acts in violation of such fundamental safeguards, the Writ Court would be well within its jurisdiction to interfere.

14. Though at this appellate stage, the appellant has argued that one individual was named as a witness at a later stage, however, the said witness was duly examined. Such matter Page No.# 6/8

and fact was not bought before the learned Single Judge and same is brought on record by way of an additional affidavit at this appellate stage.

15. Leaving the aforesaid contention apart, it is significant to take note of the manner in which the second show cause notice was issued and considered.

16. The record discloses that the disciplinary authority had already concurred with the findings of the Inquiry Officer at the stage of the second show-cause notice. The learned Single Judge, based on the principles of law settled by the Apex Court in B. Karunakar (Supra) held that the delinquent was not afforded a meaningful and effective opportunity to represent against the findings of the Inquiry Officer before the disciplinary authority arrived at its own conclusion and that the show-cause notice was issued after the authority has already made up its mind, and it reduced the requirement of hearing to an empty ritual.

17. Such findings of the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be a perverse view to warrant interference at this intra- court appellate stage.

18. In this regard, it is also of the relevance that the disciplinary proceeding in question was a second attempt following the earlier interference by a learned Single Judge in WPC 3941-2014, where liberty was granted to conduct a fresh enquiry strictly in accordance with law. The repetition of similar Page No.# 7/8

procedural lapses in the De novo enquiry reinforces the conclusion that the action of the disciplinary authority could not be sustained.

19. We also find substance in the reasoning of the learned single judge on the issue of forfeiture of gratuity.

20. Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 permits forfeiture only in cases where loss caused to the employer is established and quantified.

21. In the present case, the bank's own stand was that loss was only a probable loss. In absence of a definitive finding as to the actual loss caused, the statutory pre-conditions for forfeiture were not satisfied. The conclusion reached by the learned single judge on this aspect is unexceptionable. The fact also remains that the delinquent, in the meantime, had expired, leaving behind his wife and the daughter. Therefore, no fresh enquiry could have also been ordered.

22. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the learned single judge committed no error, either in law or on facts, in allowing the writ petition and setting aside the impugned disciplinary action and the order of forfeiture of gratuity. The judgment under appeal reflects a correct application of the governing principles and calls for no interference by this court in exercise of its intra-court appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, the intra-court appeal is dismissed.

Page No.# 8/8

23. The judgment and order dated 13-05-2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC 4647-2019 is affirmed. There shall be no order as to cost.

                      JUDGE          CHIEF JUSTICE



Comparing Assistant