Orissa High Court
Bira Kishore Mohanty vs Uco Bank & Ors. ... Opposite Parties on 25 June, 2024
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.33699 of 2011
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)
Bira Kishore Mohanty .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
UCO Bank & Ors. ... Opposite Parties
.
Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Arrangement Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dillip Ku. Mohapatra, Adv.,
For Opposite Parties : Mr. Bibhuti Bhusan Swain, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-22.04.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT: -25.06.2024
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioner through this Writ Petition challenges the order of
punishment dated 25.07.2007 passed by the Deputy General Manager
(Disciplinary Authority) and also challenges the order dated 30.05.2008.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case as put by the Petitioner:
(i) The Petitioner started his career with the Opposite Parties/Bank as a
Clerk-cum-Cashier. Due to sincerity and devotion to work, he was able to
climb the ladders of promotion. He was promoted in the year 1987 to the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
rank of Asst, Manger (Advance) and was posted in the Borikina Branch in
the district of Jagatsinghpur. The Petitioner was transferred to different
places. The Petitioner was posted at Thakurpatna Branch in the year 2004,
where he continued for two years till he was transferred to Balitutha
Branch Jagatsinghpur.
(ii) The Petitioner while continuing at Balitutha Branch, a set of charges were
framed against him alleging that during his incumbency at Thakurpatna
Branch, he had committed certain irregularities while processing and
recommending some cases for sanction of loan. Based on which the
manager had sanctioned the loans to those persons. A perusal of the
charges as has been drawn up against the Petitioner would go to show
that the Petitioner had not followed the guidelines and principles and
showed undue favour to certain persons.
(iii) It was further alleged that he had recommended KCC loans to a number
of persons without verifying the ROR (Patta), which were later found to
be forged one. The Petitioner was directed to submit his show cause reply
and explanation within seven days from the date of receipt of the letter.
(iv) The specific allegations against the Petitioner are that the Petitioner had
not followed the guidelines of the Bank. Therefore, the Opposite
Party/Bank had framed 10 charges of misconduct against the present
Petitioner. Out of the said 10 charges, the charge Nos.4 and 8 are not
proved against the Petitioner. Accordingly, the removal order was
passed. The Petitioner had been put to guillotine and heavy capital
punishment has been inflicted upon him such as removal from service
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-Jun-2024 19:23:08
despite his good work. The reward awarded by the highest authority i.e.
Chairman of the Bank to him for his deposit mobilization ability.
(v) The imputation of charges of misconduct framed against the Petitioner
are contrary to the findings of the inquiry authority based on which, the
Disciplinary Authority and other authorities have passed the orders
mechanically without having applied their mind.
(vi) The findings against Charge-l has not whispered anything as to how the
recommendation was made excess the limit of eligibility of the borrower
nor had any document been produced to that extent to prove the
recommended limit was higher than the eligibility of specific borrower.
On the other hand, the finding of inquiry authority was contrary to the
imputation of charge. The Petitioner being in-charge of Advance
Department and not just putting his signature and not recommending for
sanction cannot exclude the Petitioner from his liability. The findings is
patently perverse, grossly in-compatible with evidence on record and
based on no evidence. Hence, the charge is perverse and vitiated by law.
(vii) So far as the charge Nos.2 and 9 are concerned, it is also contrary to the
findings that there is no documents or evidences was produced by the
management to prove the charges to impose removal of service on the
Petitioner.
(viii) So far as Charge-9 is concerned, the irregularities and corrupt practices
had not been proved against the Petitioner without any documentary
evidence was produced during the domestic inquiry stating that corrupt
practices being adopted by the Petitioner for which local media had
published the news about the Branch.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-Jun-2024 19:23:08
(ix) The other charge Nos.3, 5,6,7 and 10 were mere irregularities and were
not based on any malpractices or fraudulent in nature to defraud the
Opposite Party/Bank.
(x) The Petitioner has completed 29 years of service in the Opposite
Party/Bank and he had been deprived of his gratuity without any reason.
The Petitioner has also not been removed for riotous or disorderly
conduct or violence which would cause the forfeiture of gratuity.
II. SUMISSION OF OPPOSITE PARTIES:
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties/Bank intently made
the following submissions:
(i) The Petitioner while functioning as Assistant Manager of UCO Bank,
Thakurpatna Branch from 26.07.2004 to 04.01.2006 indulged in several
acts of omission and commission, for which, the Petitioner was served
with a charge sheet dated 29.09.2006. Since the reply of the Petitioner to
the charge sheet was unsatisfactory, a domestic inquiry was initiated
against him. Upon conclusion of the inquiry proceeding, the Inquiry
Officer submitted the Inquiry Report.
(ii) The Disciplinary Authority concurred with the finding of the Inquiry
Officer, sent a copy of the Inquiry Report to the Petitioner vide letter
dated 19.04.2007. The Disciplinary Authority carefully examined the
charge sheet dated 29.09.2006 issued to the Petitioner, his reply thereto,
the inquiry proceedings, the enquiry report, submission of the Petitioner
on the Inquiry Report and all other relevant papers/documents in the
matter. The domestic inquiry was conducted in a fair and objective
manner and adequate opportunity was provided to the Petitioner to
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-Jun-2024 19:23:08
defend himself. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of
removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future
employment in respect of Charge Nos. 1, 2 and 9. So far as allegation No.3
is concerned, the punishment was to bring down the Petitioner to the
initial stage of scale-I in the time scale of pay.
(iii) So far as the Charge Nos.5 and 6 are concerned, the basic pay of the
Petitioner was reduced by four stages in the time scale of pay for a period
of 2 years with immediate effect and he shall not earn increment of pay
during the period of reduction and on expiry of the said period, the
reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.
(iv) In re: Charge Nos.7 and 10, the basic pay of the Petitioner was reduced by
two stages in the time scale of pay for a period of 2 years with immediate
effect and he shall not earn increment of pay during the period of
reduction and on expiry of the said period the reduction will have the
effect of postponing his future increments of pay. The petitioner was
exonerated from the Charge Nos. 4 and 8. The punishment imposed by
the Disciplinary Authority was quite commensurate to the gravity of the
charges leveled against the Petitioner and proved in the inquiry.
(v) The Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. But,
the Appellate Authority vide order dated 26.05.2008 observed that the
Disciplinary Authority had considered all the material facts with an
unbiased mind and imposed the penalty of removal from Bank's service,
which in the opinion of the Appellate Authority was commensurate with
the charges levelled and proved against the Petitioner. Thus, the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-Jun-2024 19:23:08
Appellate Authority upheld the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary
Authority and rejected the appeal of the Petitioner.
(vi) The Petitioner had also preferred review of the order of the Disciplinary
Authority and Appellate Authority. But the review was rejected vide
order dated 07.02.2009 by the Reviewing Authority in exercise of powers
conferred by Regulation-18 of UCO Bank Officer Employees (Discipline
and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 as amended. Hence, the Writ Petition
preferred by the Petitioner may be dismissed in view of the order passed
by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority and
rejection of review by the Reviewing Authority.
III. COURT'S ANALYSIS AND REASONS:
4. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the Inquiry
Officer and forwarded a copy of the Inquiry Report to the Petitioner via
letter dated April 19, 2007. In this process, the Disciplinary Authority
meticulously reviewed the charge sheet dated September 29, 2006, issued
to the Petitioner, his response to it, the inquiry proceedings, the inquiry
report itself/ the Petitioner's submissions on the Inquiry Report, and all
other pertinent documents related to the case. The domestic inquiry was
carried out in a fair and objective manner, ensuring the Petitioner to have
sufficient opportunity to defend himself.
5. As a result of this thorough examination, the Disciplinary Authority
decided to impose several punishments. For Charge Nos.1, 2 and 9, the
Petitioner was removed from service, although this removal was specified
not to disqualify him from future employment. Regarding allegation
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-Jun-2024 19:23:08
No.3, the punishment was a demotion to the initial stage of scale-I within
the pay scale. For Charge Nos.5 and 6/ the Petitioner's basic pay was
reduced by four stages in the pay scale for a period of two years, effective
immediately. During this period, he would not earn any increments, and
after the period ended, this reduction would impact the timing of his
future pay increments. Similarly, for Charge Nos.7 and 10, his basic pay
was reduced by two stages for two years, with the same conditions
regarding increments and future pay. The Petitioner was exonerated from
Charge Nos.4 and 8.
6. The penalties imposed by the Disciplinary Authority were deemed
appropriate and proportional to the severity of the charges proven
against the Petitioner during the enquiry. Subsequently, the Petitioner
appealed to the Appellate Authority. However, the Appellate Authority,
in its order dated May 26, 2008, determined that the Disciplinary
Authority had impartially considered all relevant facts and rightly
imposed the penalty of removal from service. The Appellate Authority
found the penalty to be commensurate with the charges and therefore
upheld the Disciplinary Authority's decision/ rejecting the Petitioner's
appeal.
7. Additionally, the Petitioner sought a review of the orders from both the
Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities. However, the Reviewing
Authority, exercising its powers under Regulation-18 of the UCO Bank
Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 (as
amended), rejected the review petition on February 7, 2009. Further, the
High Court is generally very conservative in interfering with
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-Jun-2024 19:23:08
Departmental Proceedings unless there is a blatant violation of the
principles of natural justice or gross procedural irregularities.
8. Accordingly, this Court does not accede to the submissions of the
Petitioner. With respect to the aforesaid discussion, this Court is not
inclined to entertain the prayer of the Petitioner.
9. This Writ Petition is dismissed.
10. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi )
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 25th June, 2024/ Murmu
, 2023/
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 26-Jun-2024 19:23:08
