Orissa High Court
Odisha Gramya Bank vs Nimain Charan Raj on 8 April, 2025
Author: B.P. Routray
Bench: B.P. Routray
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.105 of 2025
Odisha Gramya Bank, Bhubaneswar .... Appellants
and others
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, Advocate
On behalf of Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty, Advocate
-Versus-
Nimain Charan Raj .... Respondent
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. S.K. Samantaray, Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON' BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
Order No. 08.04.2025
04. 1. Heard Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty, learned counsel for the
appellants and Mr. S.K. Samantaray, learned counsel for the
respondent.
2. The present appellant is the Gramya Bank Authority, who
imposed penalty of dismissal against the respondent-employee in a
disciplinary proceeding. The order of dismissal was challenged by
the employee in the writ petition and the learned Single Judge vide
impugned order dated 14th November, 2024 while confirming the
guilt of the employee in the proceeding, only interfered in the
quantum of punishment to opine that the punishment of dismissal
is disproportionate to the charge. Hence, the learned Single Judge
ordered to convert the order of dismissal to an order of compulsory
retirement. Against the same, the Bank has come up in present
Writ Appeal.
3. The facts of the case reveal that the respondent-employee,
while serving as Manager of Patilo Branch at the relevant time,
was found with certain irregularities committed by him in
sanctioning and disbursing loan amounts in favour of some private
parties stated to be his relatives. Accordingly, on 12th January,
2004 the charge was issued and the charge sheet has been served
on him containing three charges. The disciplinary proceeding
continued and the petitioner participated in the same taking his
defence.
4. In the opinion of learned single judge, no irregularity was
found there in respect of conducting the disciplinary proceeding as
continued in terms of Regulation-38 (I)(b)(v) and (ii) of the
Cuttack Gramya Bank (Officers and Employees) Service
Regulations, 2001. The penalty of dismissal was imposed after
completing all procedural formalities, including service of second
show cause notice. The employer has decided to impose the
penalty of dismissal and lowering the pay of the employee-
delinquent to his initial basic pay.
5. The learned Single Judge analyzed the evidences and the
procedures followed in the departmental proceeding. Accordingly,
he opined that the scope of judicial review against the order of
departmental proceeding is very limited and relying upon several
settled laws decided by the Hon'ble apex Court, the learned Single
Judge did not find any lapse or lacuna in the procedural aspects of
the disciplinary proceeding. However, he found that since there
was no adverse report against the delinquent during his entire
service career and furtherr considering the severity of the charges
and the circumstances together, the penalty of dismissal from
service has been converted to compulsory retirement.
6. Upon going through the impugned judgment of the learned
Single Judge, we do not find any flaw therein to interfere with at
the behest of the present appellant and we fully agree with the
findings of the learned Single Judge that the punishment of
dismissal of service imposed against the delinquent employee is
disproportionate and does not commensurate the misconduct
charged with him.
7. Thus, the findings converting the order of dismissal from
service to compulsory retirement is confirmed.
8. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(B.P. Routray)
Judge
A. Nanda/ S. Behera
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 15-Apr-2025 17:44:31
