Orissa High Court

Sarat Chandra Sahoo (Since vs Central Bank Of India And ... Opposite ... on 28 February, 2025

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                   OJC NO.1572 of 2002

   (In the matter of application under Articles 226 and
   227 of the Constitution of India).

   Sarat Chandra Sahoo (since              ...       Petitioners
   dead) and others
                       -versus-

   Central Bank of India and               ... Opposite Parties
   others

   For Petitioners            : Mrs. P.P. Mohanty,
                                Advocate

   For Opposite Parties       : Mr. S. Sarangi, Sr.
                                Advocate along with Mr.
                                S.K. Sarangi, Advocate

       CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

                   DATE OF HEARING :25.02.2025
                   DATE OF JUDGMENT:28.02.2025
G. Satapathy, J.

1. Originally, the petitioner-Sarat Chandra

Sahoo who being died during the pendency of the writ

petition was substituted by the petitioners as his legal

heirs, by filing this writ petition had prayed to quash

Annexures-14 and 16 and, consequently, to issue a

direction to the OP to consider his case to reinstate and

pass such other orders granting relief to him.

By Annexure-14, the Assistant General

Manager(AGM), Central Bank of India by way of an order

passed on 28.08.2000 awarded the deceased-petitioner

with penalty of "discharge from service", which was

confirmed by an order dated 07.11.2001 passed by the

appellate authority under Annexure-16.

2. The facts in precise are that the petitioner-

Sarat Chandra Sahoo-cum-Charge Sheeted Officer(CSE),

who had filed this writ petition had died during the

pendency of the writ petition and substituted by his legal

heirs. The deceased-petitioner (CSE) while working as

Head Cashier in Central Bank of India, OSFC Extensive

Counter, Mahatab Road, Cuttack was found to have

misappropriated a sum of Rs.4,10,000/- on two dates in

June 1999, but the amount misappropriated was later on

adjusted by him. The deceased-petitioner (CSE) was

further alleged that without any authorization, he

meddled with the cash register and inserted entries to

match the missing amount and had accordingly altered

the final cash balance for subsequent days in order to

conceal his irregularities.

2.1. On the basis of above allegation, one memo

was issued on 05.07.1999 suspending the deceased-

petitioner (CSE) for embezzlement of bank cash by

committing misconduct. Similarly, another memo was

issued against the deceased-petitioner(CSE) on

07.09.1999 for embezzling a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- on

16.06.1999 through HSS Account No.1585, but

subsequently, the said amount was made good after

manipulating the final cash book balance of the extension

counter. However, again on 26.06.1999, a sum of

Rs.1,60,000/- was alleged to have been embezzled by

the deceased-petitioner (CSE) in the same fashion.

2.2. The deceased-petitioner (CSE), however,

responded to aforesaid two memos by denying the

charges stating therein that due to work pressure and

shortage of staff, the aforesaid mistake was committed,

but notwithstanding to such explanation, the authority

finding such explanation to be unsatisfactory, issued a

charge-sheet against the deceased-petitioner (CSE). The

deceased-petitioner (CSE), however, pleaded not guilty to

the charge and the matter was enquired into, but the

deceased-petitioner (CSE) was found guilty of the two

charges and the Disciplinary Authority passed the

impugned penalty of "discharge from service" against the

deceased-petitioner (CSE), which was confirmed in the

appeal by the Appellate Authority. The deceased-

petitioner (CSE) being aggrieved with such findings had

filed this writ petition, but unfortunately, he died during

the pendency of the writ petition and was substituted by

his legal heirs.

3. In the course of hearing of the writ petition,

Ms. Pragyan Paramita Mohanty, learned counsel for the

petitioners has submitted that the deceased-petitioner

(CSE) was of course found to be guilty of the charge, but

in fact, he had not committed any misconduct, rather the

aforesaid allegation was being not established against the

deceased-petitioner (CSE) and, therefore, the penalty of

"discharge from service" as imposed on the deceased-

petitioner (CSE) may kindly be set aside. It is further

submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that

since the bank has not suffered any loss on account of

the said amount of embezzlement, the punishment of

"discharge from service" as imposed against the

deceased-petitioner (CSE) is shockingly disproportionate

and is liable to be interfered with. Ms. Mohanty has,

however, submitted that the amount so claimed to have

been embezzled having been deposited by the deceased-

petitioner (CSE) and the same having been done without

any mensrea, the imposition of penalty of "discharge

from service" is quite excessive and harsh on the family

members of the deceased-petitioner (CSE). Accordingly,

Ms. Mohanty has prayed to allow the writ petition by

quashing Annexures-14 and 16.

3.1. On the other hand, Mr. Santanu Sarangi,

learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. S.K.

Sarangi, learned counsel for the Bank has submitted that

not only the charge against the deceased-petitioner (CSE)

was found established, but also the charge leveled

against him was grave and the deceased-petitioner (CSE)

having been found to have embezzled the property of the

bank does not deserve any leniency. It is, however,

argued by Mr. Sarangi that the employee of the bank

should not only maintain highest degree of integrity and

honesty, but also is required to discharge the duty with

dedication and devotion, but in this case, the deceased-

petitioner (CSE) being the employee of the bank was

supposed to maintain such standard, as he was the Head

Cashier dealing with the cash of the bank, but he had

utterly failed to discharge his duty with utmost honesty

and integrity with due diligence and, therefore, the order

of "discharge from service" as imposed on the deceased-

petitioner (CSE) does not require any interference.

Accordingly, Mr. Sarangi has prayed to dismiss the writ

petition.

4. In this writ petition, since the penalty

imposed against the deceased-petitioner (CSE) is

assailed, but such penalty has the foundation in the

charge-sheet, which is very much required to be

considered while assessing the gravity of the charge to

impose just penalty commensurate to the misconduct.

This Court, accordingly, considers it useful to refer to

the charge-sheet, which discloses that the deceased-

petitioner (CSE) was working as Head Cashier at OSFC,

Extension Counter, Mahatab Road branch, Central Bank

of India, Cuttack at the relevant time and, accordingly,

the deceased-petitioner (CSE) was charged for

embezzling cash of the bank to the tune of

Rs.2,50,000/- on 16.06.1999 and Rs.1,60,000/- on

26.06.1999. The charge-sheet also discloses allegation

against the deceased-petitioner (CSE) that he adjusted

the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on 25.06.1999 and

Rs.1,60,000/- on 03.07.1999. The aforesaid charges

were stood established against the deceased-petitioner

(CSE) since Annexure-A/3 to the counter affidavit

contains the letter of the deceased-petitioner (CSE)

addressed to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of

India, wherein the deceased-petitioner (CSE) had

admitted his misconduct.

5. Further, in the enquiry report as enclosed

under Annexure-10, the Enquiring Officer had not only

taken into account the allegation, but also had found

sufficient material to held the deceased-petitioner (CSE)

as guilty of the charges and this Court has not found

anything contrary to the findings of the enquiry report,

which was subsequently not only verified by the

Disciplinary Authority, but also further scrutinized in the

appeal by the Appellate Authority. The scope of judicial

review against the order passed in the departmental

proceeding is very limited and the Courts while

exercising their powers of judicial review over such

matters do not sit as the Appellate Authority. Decision

qua the nature and quantum is the prerogative of the

Disciplinary Authority, but the function of the Court is

only to decide as to whether the quantum of

punishment is shockingly disproportionate or

commensurate to the misconduct. It is only in

exceptional circumstance where it is found that the

punishment/penalty awarded by the Disciplinary

Authority/Employer on the employee is wholly

disproportionate and that too, to an extent that it

shakes its conscience, then the Court steps in and

interferes. Further, if the finding recorded by the

Disciplinary Authority is arrived at without or no

evidence, the Court can step in and interfere because in

that event, there would be serious prejudice to the

delinquent employee, which should be interfered with.

6. It is by now well settled that the

Constitutional Courts in exercise of powers under

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can

interfere in the matter of the disciplinary proceeding, if

the enquiry is not held by a Competent Authority or the

enquiry is not being conducted according to the

procedure established by law or there is violation of

principle of natural justice in conducting the enquiry or

the Disciplinary Authorities have allowed themselves to

be influenced by irrelevant and extraneous

consideration or the conclusion arrived at by the

Disciplinary Authority on the very face of it is so wholly

arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person

could have ever arrived at such conclusion or the

Disciplinary Authority had erroneously failed to admit

any admissible material evidence or the Disciplinary

Authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible

evidence or lastly, if the finding of fact is based on no

evidence. The aforesaid contingencies as stated to

interfere with the order passed in the disciplinary

proceeding are not at all available to the deceased-

petitioner (CSE) and, thereby, the findings of the

Disciplinary Authority cannot be questioned in this writ

petition.

7. Be that as it may, in coming to the plea of

violation of principle of natural justice as raised by the

deceased petitioner-employee(CSE), it appears that such

plea has been set up by the petitioners for the CSE not

being permitted to be defined by a lawyer, but fact

remains that a lawyer can only be engaged by the

chargesheeted employee only with the permission of the

management, which is in terms of the provision of 19.12

of the bipartite settlement and the same is not disputed

by the petitioners, however, the deceased-

employee(CSE) vide his letter dated 12.10.1999 under

Annexure-4 had requested the authority/management to

permit him to be defended by a lawyer, which request

was in fact turned down by the authority/management on

09.11.1999 under Annexure-5, but the deceased-

employee(CSE) did not challenge such refusal, rather he

participated in the domestic enquiry by cross-examining

the witnesses in departmental enquiry. Further, the

deceased-employee(CSE) was asked vide Annexure-1(b)

to submit his explanation as to why disciplinary action

should not be initiated against him, to which the

deceased-employee(CSE) replied by giving explanation

under Annexure-2. Additionally, it is found from

Annexure-10 that the deceased-employee(CSE) cross

examined all the eight witnesses examined in the

departmental enquiry and the charge leveled against him

was found established by the Enquiring Officer. Further,

the deceased-employee (CSE) was served with the copy

of enquiry report to submit his representation and

accordingly, the deceased-employee (CSE) by Annexure-

11 had submitted his representation. In addition, the

deceased-employee (CSE) was served with a show cause

vide Annexure-12 on the proposed punishment "discharge

from service" and the deceased-employee (CSE) had in

fact given his reply to such proposed punishment under

Annexure-13. The aforesaid exercise of procedure clearly

establishes that there was no violation of principle of

natural justice, while conducting departmental enquiry

against the deceased-employee (CSE), against whom the

major penalty of "discharge from service" was imposed

by the Disciplinary Authority. In the aforesaid sequence of

events, it cannot be said that the principle of natural

justice has been violated by not permitting the deceased-

employee (CSE) to be defended by a lawyer, especially

when he had not only participated in the departmental

enquiry by cross-examining the witnesses, but also had

not challenged the action of authority in refusing

permission to him to engage a lawyer for his defence.

Hence, such contention advanced on behalf of the

petitioners merits no consideration.

8. Right now, the only question to be seen in

this case is whether the punishment imposed against

the deceased-petitioner (CSE) was shockingly

disproportionate, but in a case like this, where the

person is an employee dealing with the cash of the

bank, he is required to maintain not only the highest

degree of integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence,

but also has to act in such a manner which is not

unbecoming of a bank officer/employee. Good conduct

and discipline are really important traits of a good

employee, but if either of the same is lost, the

employer would definitely loose confidence on its

employee. Trust is such a quality which once lost

cannot be revived again. In this case, the deceased-

petitioner(CSE) was dealing with cash of the bank and

his role was to accept cash from the customers and

account for it, but in this case, not only did the

deceased-petitioner(CSE) misappropriate the deposits

of the customers, but also committed such

misappropriation for a temporary period by

manipulating the registers and documents and,

thereby, has misconducted in performing his duties and

himself was directly involved in misappropriation and,

therefore, the punishment "from discharge of service"

as imposed on the deceased-petitioner(CSE) is not

shockingly disproportionate, but appears to be

commensurate to his misconduct. Further, it is not in

dispute that the employee who was found guilty and

penalized had in fact expired in the meantime and,

therefore, in such situation, there is hardly any

necessity to interfere with the penalty and there being

no material to indicate as to how the family members of

the deceased-petitioner(CSE) are suffering from such

penalty, this Court does not consider it proper to

interfere with the penalty imposed on the deceased-