Orissa High Court
National Bank For Agriculture And Rural vs Durgaprasad Sangramjit Mallick on 24 March, 2025
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha, M.S. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.1671 of 2024
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural .... Appellants
Development (NABARD) and others
-Versus-
Durgaprasad Sangramjit Mallick .... Respondent
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Appellants : Mr. Gautam Misra, Senior Advocate
For Respondent : In Person
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
JUDGMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and judgment: 24th March, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARINDAM SINHA, ACJ.
1. Appellant is National Bank for Agriculture and Rural
Development (NABARD). It is the parent of agricultural banks and
aggrieved by judgment dated 26th April, 2024 made by the learned single
Judge allowing the writ petition by quashing order of dismissal dated
26th August, 2005 passed against respondent and further direction for
consequential order being made. Mr. Misra, learned senior advocate
appears on behalf of appellants and respondent appears in person.
2. On query Mr. Misra submits, the direction for consequential order
made in impugned judgment is for his client to reinstate respondent. He
has already achieved age of superannuation.
3. Mr. Misra submits, he has several grounds of appeal. Impugned
judgment suffers from errors apparent on face of the record. He clarifies,
impugned judgment has errors on fact. So much so, there is no reference
to the appellate order, confirming the dismissal. His next point is, where
there has been finding that there was violation of natural justice, the
matter ought to have been remitted back to the appellate authority
instead of directing relief of reinstatement. The Court could not have
usurped the administrative function of conducting disciplinary
proceeding, including up to the appellate stage. His third point is, in
event impugned judgment is allowed to stand, it would amount to
rewriting the rules of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural
Development (NABARD), (Staff) Rules, 1982, in particular rule 44.
4. At this stage, we interrupt Mr. Misra and require to be shown the
charges. They were communicated to respondent by letter dated 19th
February, 2004. Paragraph-3 of the communication being the charge, is
reproduced below.
"3. You are, therefore, charged with having:
i. violated Rule 26 of NABARD (Staff) Rules, 1982
by not paying heed to instructions issued by the
Bank;
ii.Committed an act of misconduct within the
meaning of Rule 47(i) ibid, by showing disregard
to the office discipline."
5. Reproduced below are rules 5B, 26 and 47 (1).
" 5B. During the period when the post of Managing
Director is vacant otherwise than as provided in
Section 11 of the Act, all powers of the Managing
Director contained in Rules 18, 19, 47 and 49 shall be
vested in the Executive Director in-charge of
Personnel Administration at the Head Office or such
other equivalent officer as may be decided by the
Chairman."
Obviously, this rule was relied upon on reason that the Executive
Director in-charge of Personnel had issued the charge sheet as post of
Managing Director, at the material time, was vacant.
"26. Every employee of the National Bank shall
conform to and abide by the Rules and shall observe,
comply with an obey all orders and directions which
may form time to time be given to him by any person or
persons under whose jurisdiction, superintendence or
control he may for the time being be placed."
"47(1). Without prejudice to the provisions of other
Rules, an employee who commits a breach of the Rules
of the National Bank, or who displays negligence, or
indolence or who knowingly does anything detrimental
to the interests of the National Bank or in conflict with
its instructions, or who commits a breach of discipline
or is guilty of any other act of misconduct, shall be
liable to the following penalties.
(a) Reprimand;
(b) delay or stoppage of increment or
promotion
(c) degradation to a lower post or grade or to
a lower stage in his incremental scale;
(d) recovery from pay of the whole or part of
any pecuniary loss caused to the National
Bank by the employee;
(e) dismissal."
6. Clearly, charge leveled against respondent was vague. There is no
mention in the charge of rule 44, reproduced below.
"44. An employee shall so manage his private
affairs as to avoid insolvency or habitual indebtedness.
An employee who is in debt shall furnish to the
Competent Authority a signed statement of his
position half-yearly on the 30th June and 31st
December and shall indicate in the statement the
steps he is taking to rectify his position. An employee
who makes a false statement under this Rule or who
fails to submit the prescribed statement or appears
unable to liquidate his debts within a reasonable time
or applies for the protection of an insolvency court
shall be liable to dismissal.
Explanation 1- For the purpose of this Rule an
employee shall be deemed to be in debt if his total
liabilities, exclusive of those which are fully secured,
exceed his substantive pay for twelve months.
Explanation 2- An employee shall be deemed to be
unable to liquidate his debts within a reasonable time
if it appears, having regard to his personal resources
and unavoidable current expenses, that he will not
cease to be in debt within a period of two years."
(emphasis supplied)
Mr. Misra submits, paragraph-1 in the communication of charge clearly
states ingredients of the requirement under rule 44, as the charge.
7. To hold respondent as required to answer a charge under rule 44,
on an interpretation of the communication of statement of the charge will
not answer the requirement of him having had full opportunity of being
heard. This is because his attention was not drawn to the rule, which
subsequently is being asserted as basis of the charge, though other rules
were mentioned in it. However, considering there have been findings on
fact on the charge by the appellate authority, which Mr. Misra contends,
was understood by respondent to be made on basis of rule 44, we think
fit to accept the situation as had unfolded in the disciplinary proceeding
conducted and earlier writ petition, since disposed of. On that premise,
taking into consideration appellant's contention of misdemeanor
committed by respondent, who has crossed the age of superannuation,
we deem fit to direct that he shall be deemed to continue in employment
for purpose of issuance of amended charge sheet on the basis of same
facts as were mentioned in aforesaid communication dated 19th February,
2004 invoking relevant rules. This must be done by appellant within
three weeks from date i.e., on or before 21st April, 2025. Till that time,
consequential direction made by impugned order will remain stayed. In
event amended charge is communicated as directed, impugned order will
stand modified, failing which to stand confirmed. Thus we are restoring
the disciplinary proceeding on above terms.
8. Respondent has not made any submission disputing facts
regarding the disciplinary proceeding and litigation that went before he
filed this writ petition, resulting in impugned order.
9. The appeal is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha)
Acting Chief Justice
(M.S. Sahoo)
Judge
S.K. Behera
A. Nanda
Signed by: SISIRA KUMAR BEHERA
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 25-Mar-2025 17:16:47
