Orissa High Court
State Bank Of India vs Rama Krishna Behera on 19 June, 2025
Author: K.R.Mohapatra
Bench: K.R.Mohapatra
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 19-Jun-2025 17:45:59
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.22135 of 2017
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India)
****
State Bank of India, represented by the Assistant
General Manager, Region-1, Regional Office,
PO: Jeypore, Dist: Koraput, Odisha .... Petitioner
-versus-
1. Rama Krishna Behera, S/o late Brundaban
Behera, EX-Messenger, AT: Near Santoshi
Mandir, Shivaji Nagar, PO: Umerkote, Dist:
Nawarangpur-764073
2. Presiding Officer, Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar, AT H-24, Housing Board Colony,
Nageswar Tangi, Lewis Road, Bhubaneswar,
Dist: Khordha ... Opp. Parties
Advocate for the parties
For Petitioner : Mr. Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, Senior Advocate
being assisted by Mr. K.T.Mudali, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. Durga Prasanna Das, Advocate
(For Opposite Party No.1)
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE JUSTICE K.R.MOHAPATRA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 17.04.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 19.06.2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
K.R.Mohapatra, J
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 19-Jun-2025 17:45:59
// 2 //
2. Management of State Bank of India calls in question the legality
and propriety of award dated 14th February, 2017 (Annexure-1) passed
by learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar (for brevity, 'learned Tribunal') in
Industrial Dispute Case No.30 of 2004 directing the Petitioner-
Management to reinstate the Workman/Opposite Party No.1 in service
with 50% back wages.
2.1. For convenience in discussion, the parties are described as per
their respective status before learned Tribunal.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for
adjudication of this case are that the industrial dispute set in motion
pursuant to a reference made by the appropriate Government. For
ease of discussion, the reference to be answered by learned Tribunal
read as under:-
"1. Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of
India, Umerkote in terminating the service of Shri
R.K.Behera, Messenger by way of infliction of punishment, is
legal and justified? If yes, whether the same is proportionate
to cause of offence committed by the workman?
2. If not, to what relief the workman concerned is
entitled?"
3.1 The Workman (Opposite Party No.1) was appointed as
Messenger in State Bank of India, Umerkote Branch with effect from
26th March, 1992 and was discharging his duties. One Smt. Radha
Gouduni had a freedom fighter's account with the Petitioner-Bank at
Umerkote Branch. The said branch used to draw the pension of said
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 19-Jun-2025 17:45:59
// 3 //
Smt. Radha Gouduni from the State Government and depositing the
same in her SB account, which she used to draw from time to time.
The account became dormant for non-drawal of any amount/non-
operation of the account for a considerable period. When the matter
stood thus, on 3rd October, 2000, an amount of Rs.20,000/- was
withdrawn from the said account on presentation of a withdrawal slip
bearing a Left Thumb Impression (LTI). At the relevant time, one Sri
R.N.Biswas was working as Junior Manager, Sri Koteswar Pattnaik
was working as Account Opening Counter Clerk and Sri Mrutunjaya
Pattnaik was working as Paying Cashier in the said branch. On the
next day of such withdrawal, it was detected that the account holder,
namely, Smt. Radha Gouduni had died long back and Rs.20,000/-
was drawn by her grandson. When the incident came to the
knowledge of the higher authority, a departmental proceeding was
initiated against him on the allegation that the said withdrawal slip of
Smt. Radha Gouduni was passed for payment on the approach and
request of the Workman and that the Workman presented the
withdrawal slip of deceased Radha Gouduni before Sri Koteswar
Pattnaik, who was manning the SB account counter on the date of
withdrawal and requested to issue a token stating that the depositor
was unable to come to the counter because of heavy rush in the
Branch and managed drawal of money from the account of a
deceased person. However, the Workman recovered the amount from
the drawee and deposited the same in the account by the time the
departmental proceeding was initiated. One Sri S. Rajarshee, SMGS-
4 of Damanjodi branch was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 19-Jun-2025 17:45:59
// 4 //
the departmental enquiry against the Workman and three other
officials of Umerkote Branch named above. Enquiry report was
submitted holding the Workman guilty of gross misconduct for
facilitating the drawal of the amount from the account of a dead
person. Hence, he was imposed with major punishment of removal
from Bank's service in terms of Para-6 (b) of bipartite settlement
dated 10th April, 2022. Needless to mention here that before imposing
major penalty, the Workman was served with notice against the
enquiry report as well as imposition of major penalty.
3.2 Being aggrieved, the Workman preferred an appeal before the
appellate authority, which was dismissed and the order was
communicated vide letter No.DGM/BER/DP&F/154 dated 4th July,
2003 (Annexure-5). Assailing the order of removal from service, the
Workman moved the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central),
Bhubaneswar on different grounds. Conciliation being failed on 10 th
December, 2003, the failure report was submitted to the appropriate
Government and thereafter the matter was referred to learned
Tribunal to answer the aforesaid reference.
3.3 The Workman in his claim statement stated that withdrawal of
cash from a SB account was not his part of duty as per the duty chart
of a Messenger. There might be some irregularity and negligence on
the part of the Officer who passed the withdrawal slip for payment
and issued token. Denying his involvement in any manner in the
alleged withdrawal of the amount from the account of deceased
Radha Gouduni, the Workman pleaded that the account in question
became dormant with effect from September, 1999, as it was not
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 19-Jun-2025 17:45:59
// 5 //
being operated for long time. Before passing the withdrawal slip, Sri
Koteswar Pattnaik, the SB Account Clerk was duty-bound to seek
attendance of the account-holder, Smt. Radha Gouduni for
verification of her LTI and forwarding slip for payment.
Simultaneously, said Mrutunjaya Pattnaik, the Paying Cashier was
expected to be vigilant and to ask for personal attendance of Radha
Gouduni before making payment. Sri Biswas was also negligent of
his duty in passing the withdrawal slip for payment without verifying
the attendance and LTI of Radha Gouduni. The Workman had no role
in such withdrawal and disbursement of the amount. When the matter
was detected, he helped the Accounts Clerk and the Paying Cashier
to recover the amount from the grandson of the deceased account
holder and deposited the same in the account of deceased Radha
Gouduni. Such an incident occurred due to negligence of the officials
involved in passing the withdrawal slip, issuing token and releasing
cash. Being a mere Messenger, the Workman should not be made
liable and held responsible for the misconduct of senior officers of
the Bank. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Assistant
General Manager, SBI, Jeypore for the incident and one year
thereafter, the departmental proceeding was drawn up against the
Workman and three others. Charge sheet was issued without a copy
of such preliminary report, statement of imputations, list of witnesses
and documents relied on by the Department. The Enquiry Officer
was appointed before submission of show cause reply by the
Workman. Due to non-supply of the relevant documents, as stated
above, the Workman could not submit his explanation. Though the
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 19-Jun-2025 17:45:59
// 6 //
departmental enquiry was conducted at Damanjodi Branch no
advance Travelling Allowance (TA) was provided to attend the
departmental enquiry. Though several documents were exhibited in
the departmental enquiry and official witnesses were examined, copy
of the same was not provided to the Workman. The statement of
witnesses was not recorded on oath in presence of the Workman. He
was also not provided with opportunity to cross-examine the official
witnesses. The presenting Officer became the witness and relying
upon his version conclusion to hold the Workman guilty was arrived
at. The Workman was also not provided any opportunity to produce
his witnesses. No material was placed before the Enquiry Officer to
suggest that the Workman was aware of the death of Radha Gouduni
and he had any connivance for withdrawal of such amount from the
account of a deceased woman.
3.4 Further, other three officials were imposed with minor
punishment, whereas the Workman was inflicted with major
punishment of removal from service only to protect the erring and
negligent officials. The departmental enquiry was vitiated for not
following the principles of natural justice. Hence, he claims his
reinstatement with full back wages along with all service benefits.
4. The First Party Management (SBI, Umerkote branch) filed its
written statement stating that an amount of Rs.20,000/- was
withdrawn from the SB account of a deceased account holder. Taking
advantage of his proximity, the Workman misled the bank officials to
pass the withdrawal slip and thereby abated withdrawal of a huge
amount from the account of deceased-Radha Gouduni. Departmental
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 19-Jun-2025 17:45:59
// 7 //
proceeding was initiated against the Workman as well as three other
negligent employees. Charge sheet against each of them was
submitted detailing the charges and imputations. Due enquiry was
conducted in conformity with principles of natural justice. Ample
opportunity was given to the Workman to defend himself in the
departmental proceeding. He was furnished with the charge-sheet and
all necessary documents for the purpose of defending himself in the
departmental enquiry, as he was primarily responsible for such illegal
withdrawal. The Enquiry Officer analyzing the documents available
and the statement of witnesses held the Workman guilty of the
charges levelled against him. He was issued with show cause notice
along with copy of the enquiry report to submit his explanation.
Following due procedure, he was dismissed from service. There
being no defect in the departmental enquiry followed by imposition
of major punishment of dismissal from service learned Tribunal
should not interfere with the order of punishment.
5. On the basis of rival pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal
framed the following issues.
1. Whether the action of the Management of State
Bank of India, Umerkote in terminating the service of
Shri R.K.Behera, Messenger by way of infliction of
punishment, is legal and justified? If yes, whether the
same is proportionate to cause of offence committed
by the workman?
2. If not, to what relief the workman concerned is
entitled?
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 19-Jun-2025 17:45:59
// 8 //
6. The question with regard to fairness of the enquiry was not
raised by any of the parties to the industrial dispute. Thus, without
framing any preliminary issue with regard to fairness of enquiry
learned Tribunal proceeded to adjudicate the issues framed and
answer the reference taking up of both issues as aforesaid
simultaneously.
7. To substantiate his case, the Workman examined himself as
WW-1 and relied upon certain documents, viz., copy of the job card
No.4 of the Management, copy of the duty chat of Messenger as per
the Staff Training Centre, copy of the suspension order dated 27th
October, 2000, copy of the charge sheet dated 24th September, 2001,
copy of letter dated 10th November, 2001, copy of letter dated 10th
December, 2001, copy of the affidavit of Sri Jugal Gouda, copy of
letter of Sri S.K.Bahinipati, copy of the enquiry report, copy of letter
dated 26th December, 2002, copy of letter dated 31st March, 2003,
copy of the appeal memorandum and copy of order dated 4th July,
2003 of the appellate authority, which are marked as Ext.1 to Ext.13.
7.1 Likewise, the Petitioner-Management examined Sri Niranjan
Swain, the Chief Manager and filed documents such as, copy of the
charge sheet dated 24th September, 2001, Copy of office order
No.404 dated 10th November, 2001, copy of office order dated 10th
December, 2001, copy of order dated 21st March, 2003, copy of
order dated 4th July, 2003, copy of charge sheet dated 24th
September, 2001 in respect of the Workman, copy of the charge
sheet dated 24th September, 2001 of Sri R.N.Biswas, Sri Koteswar
Pattnaik and Sri Mrutunjaya Pattnaik, copy of warning letter dated
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 19-Jun-2025 17:45:59
// 9 //
26th October, 2002 in respect of Sri Koteswar Pattnaik, copy of
punishment order in respect of said Sri R.N. Biswas, copy of
punishment order of administrative warning issued in respect of
Mrutunjaya Pattnaik. The Management further relied upon the
original withdrawal slip dated 3rd October, 2000, original deposit
slip dated 9/10th October, 2000, original letter of Workman dated 9th
October, 2000. The documents relied upon by the Management
were marked as Ext. 'A' to Ext. 'P'.
8. Learned Tribunal on the basis of the material available on
record and contentions raised, answered the reference by directing
the Petitioner-Management to reinstate the Workman forthwith with
50% back wages vide award under Annexure-1. Assailing the same,
this writ petition has been filed by the Management.
9. Before adverting to the rival contentions of the parties, it is
apposite to mention that the Workman has in the meantime attained
the age of superannuation. Thus, direction issued by learned
Tribunal for reinstatement of the Workman cannot be given effect
to even if the writ petition fails. Keeping in mind the same, this
Court proceeds to discuss the rival contentions of the parties.
10. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
Management vehemently argued that while adjudicating the
industrial dispute, learned Tribunal lost sight of the charges framed
against the Workman, materials available against him as well as
evidence available on record. Although ample materials available on
record reveal that principles of natural justice was followed at every
stage of the departmental enquiry, but learned Tribunal most
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 19-Jun-2025 17:45:59
// 10 //
mechanically held that the Workman was prejudiced for non-
compliance of principles of natural justice. Enquiry conducted by the
Enquiry Officer cannot be a full-proof one and there bound to be
certain lacunae in it, but learned Tribunal ought to have examined
irregularity, if any, in the departmental proceeding, has caused any
prejudice to the Workman or not. If any of the lacunae is irregular
one and did not prejudice the Workman in any manner, it should not
be a ground to hold the entire proceeding to be vitiated.
11. Further, the pleading of the Management in its written
statement was not at all discussed by learned Tribunal while
adjudicating the industrial dispute. Learned Tribunal unnecessarily
emphasized the pleadings of the Workman without referring to the
reply to it by the Management. It is the submission of Mr. Mohanty,
learned Senior Advocate that the statements of witnesses examined
on behalf of the Management were recorded in presence of the
Workman and his representative and in token thereof, they signed
the day-to-day proceedings. The witnesses of the Management were
also elaborately and effectively cross-examined by the
representative of the Workman during departmental proceeding.
Moreover, when fairness of the departmental enquiry was not in
question before learned Tribunal, the procedure adopted during
departmental enquiry should not be a ground to answer the
reference in favour of the Workman. It is his submission that
keeping in mind the delinquency of the erring officials including the
Workman, they have been suitably punished.
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 19-Jun-2025 17:45:59
// 11 //
12. Maintenance of discipline in Banking Sector being of
paramount consideration no illegality has been committed by
dismissing the Workman from service. Admittedly, the Workman
had a role in withdrawal of the amount from a dormant account of a
deceased account-holder. Although at first instance, the Workman
admitted to have assisted withdrawal of the amount in good faith to
help the legal heir of the deceased account-holder, but subsequently
disowned the same and totally denied his involvement in the entire
incident. That itself shows the mala fide of the Workman. This
aspect was completely brushed aside by learned Tribunal while
adjudicating the industrial dispute. In any case, learned Tribunal
should not have directed reinstatement of the Workman. If at all, it is
found that there are some lapses in the departmental proceeding
including the allegation of non-compliance of principles of natural
justice, learned Tribunal ought to have directed the Management to
conduct the enquiry de novo from that stage following the principles
of natural justice. Taking the place of the disciplinary authority and
directing reinstatement of the Workman was not only illegal but the
same was also not sustainable in the eye of law. He, therefore, prays
for setting aside the impugned award and to remit the matter to
learned Tribunal for fresh adjudication of the industrial dispute.
13. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Workman with reference to
counter affidavit filed by the Workman submitted that the
departmental enquiry was perfunctory as it proceeded without
providing reasonable opportunity to the Workman to defend his
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 19-Jun-2025 17:45:59
// 12 //
case. He also reiterated the contentions raised by the Workman in
his statement of claim.
13.1 It is further submitted that the Management adduced evidence
of one Niranjan Swain, who was not present at the time of the
incident. As such, he had no direct knowledge of the incident or the
alleged involvement of the Workman in it. Although he adduced
evidence on the basis of the official record neither the record of
departmental proceeding was exhibited before learned Tribunal nor
was any endeavour made to call for the same. The Workman being a
Messenger had no role to play either for withdrawal or deposit of
money in any account much less the account of the deceased account-
holder, Smt. Radha Gouduni. The Workman had exhibited his job
card which clearly opts out his involvement in the entire incident. Ext.
'P', which was relied upon by the Management to bring home the
charges levelled against the Workman was obtained from the
Workman by exercising undue influence and pressure by the then
Chief Manager of the Bank in order to save the other delinquent
officials. In his cross-examination, the Workman had specifically
stated about the same. It was alleged that the grandson of the deceased
account-holder, namely, Jugal Gouda, by filing affidavit (Ext.7)
clearly stated that he had illegally withdrawn the amount from the
dormant account of his deceased grandmother. After the illegal
withdrawal was pointed out by the bank employee, the Workman
along with his co-employees rushed to his house and requested him to
return the amount and he (Jugal Gouda) returned the same. Although
he was present at the time of enquiry, but the Enquiry Officer did not
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 19-Jun-2025 17:45:59
// 13 //
allow said Jugal Gouda to adduce evidence in the enquiry. He also
pointed out several other lacunae in the departmental enquiry and
submitted that in view of the above, learned Tribunal has committed
no error in directing reinstatement of Opposite Party No.1. He,
therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties; also perused the
materials placed before the Court at the time of hearing. It appears
from record that the Workman had specifically taken a plea that the
departmental enquiry was not conducted in a fair and transparent
manner in conformity with the principles of natural justice.
Although evasive denial was made by the Management, but no
specific pleading with regard to the fairness of the departmental
enquiry was available in the written statement filed by the
Management. No evidence was also adduced in that regard. The
Presenting Officer appears to have no direct knowledge about the
incident. The evidence of the Presenting Officer was purely based
on official records. It, however, appears that no prayer was made by
any of the parties to try the issue of fairness of the departmental
enquiry, as primary issue. Be that as it may, when the Workman
had specifically raised an issue with regard to the fairness of the
departmental enquiry, learned Tribunal ought to have tried the
fairness of the inquiry as a preliminary issue. But, learned Tribunal
proceeded to adjudicate the industrial dispute on merit basing upon
the materials available on record. Evidence on behalf of the
Management was led to address that the departmental enquiry was
conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down in the
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 19-Jun-2025 17:45:59
// 14 //
Certified Standing Order of the Management as well as complying
with the principles of natural justice. But the testimony of MW-1
does not disclose in detail about the procedure adopted in
conducting the departmental enquiry. It appears that the
Management had heavily relied on the report of the preliminary
enquiry, the copy of which was not supplied to the Workman. It
further appears that the Workman had taken a specific plea that he
being a Messenger, had no role in withdrawal of cash of a third
party as per the duty chart of Messenger exhibited by the Workman.
The Management appears to have not adduced any evidence as to
how the withdrawal slip allegedly tendered by the Workman could
be entertained and an amount of Rs.20,000/- was allowed to be
withdrawn in absence of the account-holder. Surprisingly, it appears
from the written statement filed by the Management that the
Officers involved in allowing withdrawal of Rs.20,000/- from the
account of Radha Gouduni in her absence were inflicted with minor
penalties. But in absence of any clinching material showing
involvement of Workman in withdrawal of the cash, he was
inflicted with the punishment of dismissal from service. It raises
doubt about the fairness of the enquiry held against Workman.
15. On scrutiny of records, it appears that the Workman was asked
to submit his explanation against the report of the Enquiry Officer in
the departmental enquiry. But there is no material on record to show
as to whether the Workman was given any opportunity to show cause
against the proposed punishment to be imposed on him more
particularly when he was inflicted with major penalty of dismissal
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 19-Jun-2025 17:45:59
// 15 //
from service. It, however, appears from the record that the Workman
had helped to recover the amount, which was withdrawn from the
account of a dead person. The same cannot be a ground to hold that
the Workman had connived with the grandson of the deceased
account-holder in withdrawing the amount.
16. On a cumulative assessment of the materials available on
record, we are of the considered opinion that the materials on record
were not sufficient to hold the Workman guilty of any misconduct
alleged against him. Discussing the oral as well as the documentary
evidence on record, learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that the
departmental enquiry was not conducted with all fairness and in
conformity with the principles of natural justice.
17. On a careful assessment of the submission of
Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
Management, it cannot be held that the impugned award is perverse,
more particularly when learned Tribunal on assessment of materials
on record arrived at the impugned findings. Only because a
different view may be possible by re-appreciating the materials on
record, this Court should not interfere with the impugned award in
exercise of power conferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the
impugned award under Annexure-1.
18. We have already held that the Workman has already attained
the age of superannuation in the meantime and he has already
received the amount under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 till the date of his superannuation. Mr. Mohanty, learned
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 19-Jun-2025 17:45:59
// 16 //
Senior Advocate, in course of argument submitted and also placed
on record a statement showing disbursement of an amount to the
Workman beyond the date of his superannuation. Mr. Das, learned
counsel appearing for the Workman does not seriously disputes the
same. In that view of the matter, direction of learned Tribunal for
reinstatement of the Workman does not arise at this stage. However,
keeping in mind the that the Workman was drawing a salary of
Rs.5,792/- at the time of his dismissal from service and that the
Workman had attained the age of superannuation in the year 2022,
this Court is of the considered opinion that an amount of Rs.5.00
lakh towards lump sum compensation in lieu of his reinstatement
and 50% of the back wages, as directed by learned Tribunal, will
meet the ends of justice.
19. Accordingly, it is directed that the Management shall pay a
sum of Rs.5.00 lakh (rupees five lakh only) to the
Workman/Opposite Party No.1 as lump sum compensation in lieu
of reinstatement in service along with 50% of back wages within a
period of two months hence.
20. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. In the facts and
circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Dated the 19th day of June, 2025/ s.s.satapathy
