Odisha Gramya Bank And Another vs Prasanna Kr. Rout
2023 Latest Caselaw 177 Ori

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                       W.A. No. 145 of 2020

             Odisha Gramya Bank and Another      ....           Appellants
                                           Mr. S.C. Samantaray, Advocate
                                     -versus-
             Prasanna Kr. Rout                   ....          Respondent
                                            Mr. Bimbisar Dash, Advocate


             CORAM:
             THE CHIEF JUSTICE
             JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN
                                           ORDER

Order No.                                 04.01.2023
            I.A. No. 218 of 2020

02. 1. The delay of 137 days in filing the writ appeal has not been satisfactorily explained. The Court is not convinced that the reasons adduced in this application for the inordinate delay are bona fide. Consequently, the Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application is dismissed.

W.A. No.145 of 2020

2. Nevertheless the appeal has also been examined on merit. It is directed against an order dated 12th September, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing OJC No. 5613 of 1995 filed by the Respondent. In the said writ petition, the Respondent, who was an employee of the Appellant-Bank challenged an order dated 7th June 1995 containing a direction to recover a sum of Rs.10,634.18 from his salary with effect from July, 1995 in 15 installments at Rs.750/- per month. A further direction was sought in the writ petition to the Bank to allow annual increments to the Respondents for the years 1984-1987 and pay him the differential salary for the said years and

also allow an extra increment as per NIT award minus salary from 1987 to 1995.

3. One of the questions that arose before the learned Single Judge was how the punishment awarded to the Respondent in a disciplinary inquiry of withholding of three increments on consecutive basis, should be interpreted. The learned Single Judge has held that the word 'consecutive' cannot be read as 'cumulative' but has to be understood in its plain order in grammatical meaning. Consequently, the learned Single Judge concluded that since the penalty was a stoppage of increment for three 'consecutive' years, the increment of fourth year would be released only after the satisfactory performance and that in the 4th year the Respondent having satisfied the second limb of condition, his pay had to be fixed accordingly.

4. The learned Single Judge has also found that the downward revision of the pay of the Respondent by the impugned order of the Bank was in violation of the principles of natural justice since the Respondent was not put on prior notice.

5. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of re-fitment of the pay of the Respondent and held that he was entitled to receive salary as per the fitment already made.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the Appellant and having examined carefully the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, in the light of the documents placed on record, the Court is not persuaded that the impugned order suffers from any illegality that call for interference. There is no answer by the Bank to the finding of the learned Single Judge that the re-fitment of the

Respondent salary was made, to its detriment without putting him on notice first. Further the interpretation placed by the learned Single Judge on the word 'consecutive' vis-à-vis the punishment awarded to the Respondent in the disciplinary proceedings, does not call for any interference.

7. No grounds have been made out for interference of the learned Single Judge on merits as well.

8. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed both on the grounds of delay as well as on merits.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

(M.S.Raman) Judge S.K. Jena/Secy.