Manoj Kumar Kar vs Odisha Gramya Bank on 19 March, 2026

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                WP(C) No.8412 of 2023

Manoj Kumar Kar                   .....                 Petitioner
                                                  Mr. M. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate
                                                         along with
                                                  Ms. S. Mohanty, Advocate
                        -versus-
Odisha Gramya Bank, BBSR .....                          Opposite Parties
& Anr.                                            Mr. M.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate
                                                       along with
                                                  Mr. S. Senapati, Advocate
                    CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
                     ORDER

19.03.2026 Order No.11

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

"In the fitness of the above circumstances, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this writ application:

AND

(a) an appropriate order may kindly be passed asking the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to be defended in the enquiry by a defence representative of his choice;

(b) an appropriate order may kindly be passed asking the opp. Party No. 1 (i) to supply the documents as sought for by the petitioner under Annexure-22 dated 13.02.2023 and (ii) to produce the originals of the documents (photo copies of which have wrongly been

marked as MEs on 13.02.2023) before going ahead with the enquiry.

AND

(c) such other order/ orders/ direction/ directions/writ/writs may kindly be passed/issued in giving relief/justice to the poor petitioner;

For which act of kindness, the petitioner shall ever pray."

4. It is contended that order of dismissal passed against the Petitioner vide order dtd.20.06.2003 was assailed by the Petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 13737 of 2006. This Court vide judgment dtd.21.10.2011, while setting aside the order of dismissal issued the following direction so contained in Para 13:-

"13. We, therefore, allow the writ application, set aside the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority in Annexures-23 and 25 and remit the matter back to conduct a de-novo enquiry in respect of charge nos.5 to 8 and proceed accordingly in accordance with law."

4.1. It is contended that even though the order of dismissal was set aside and direction was issued to cause de novo enquiry, but Opp. Party-Bank challenged the order passed by this Court on 21.10.2011 before the Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 6411 of 2012. During pendency of the appeal before the Apex Court, Petitioner also attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2021. However, it is contended that appeal filed by the Bank before the Apex Court was dismissed vide order dtd.20.04.2022 under Annexure-3.

4.2. It is contended that after dismissal of the appeal so filed by the Bank, when de novo enquiry started with appointment of fresh enquiry officer, Petitioner was noticed to appear in the said proceeding vide notice dtd.18.11.2022 under Annexure-15. While issuing such a notice, Petitioner was directed to produce the following documents:-

"1. Consent letter for your DR if any.

2. List of defense exhibits if any.

3. List of defense witness if any."

4.3. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that on receipt of the notice dtd.18.11.2022, Petitioner made his reply by way of a memo on 28.11.2022 under Annexure-17 and in the said memo, the following stand was taken with regard to the documents to be exhibited by the Petitioner, morefully reflected in Para 3:-

"3. I beg to cause production of the list of Defence Exhibits and the list Defance Witnesses (on a Later Date) on receipt of the copies of the list of Management Exhibits and list of Management witnesses."

4.4. It is contended that on the face of such stand taken by the Petitioner before the enquiry officer and in course of enquiry on 13.02.2023, tough the enquiry officer directed the presenting officer to arrange the documents so required by the Petitioner to be exhibited in the proceeding and indicated in his letter dtd.13.02.2023 under Annexure-22, but without producing those documents, when the enquiry continued, the present writ petition was filed inter alia with the aforesaid prayer.

4.5. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since the enquiry officer taking into account the documents to be exhibited by the Petitioner so reflected in Annexure-22, directed the Presenting Officer to arrange the documents for such production, without producing those documents, the enquiry could not have proceeded further. It is accordingly contended that the Opp. Party- Bank be directed to produce the documents to be exhibited by the Petitioner as defence exhibits in terms of notice dtd.18.11.2022 so directed by the enquiry officer in the proceeding of the enquiry dtd.13.02.2023 enclosed as Annexure in I.A. No.21811 of 2025.

4.6. It is also contended that Petitioner be permitted to be represented by a defense representative, which has been illegally rejected.

5. Mr. M.K. Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Opp. Party-Bank also does not dispute the contention raised by the learned Sr. counsel appearing for the Petitioner with regard to the documents to be exhibited by the Petitioner and for which the direction has been issued by the Enquiry Officer to the Presenting Officer in the proceeding of the enquiry dtd.13.02.2023. However, it is contended that in the said proceeding the Presenting Officer has agreed to produce the documents so desired by the Petitioner, subject to its availability and relevant to the context of the charge sheet.

5.1. It is contended that such documents which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of the proceeding and subject to its availability

will be produced before the Enquiry Officer by the Presenting Officer and Petitioner be permitted to exhibit those documents.

5.2. With regard to the other contention raised by the learned Sr. Counsel that Petitioner be permitted to engage a defence representative to conduct the enquiry on his behalf, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Opp. Party-Bank contended that there is no such provision for allowing a retired employee to engage a defence representative to represent him in the enquiry. Such a benefit can only be extended to in-service employees as per the Bank's Regulation. It is accordingly contended that such a prayer made by the Petitioner cannot be accepted. It is further contended that Petitioner if so desires, can take help of an in-service employee of the Bank as his defence representative.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner in the proceeding in question when was removed vide order dtd.20.06.2003, the same was assailed before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 13737 of 2006. This Court vide judgment dtd.21.10.2011 under Annexure-2 while setting aside the order of dismissal, directed the Bank to go for de novo enquiry. The said order though was assailed before the Apex Court, but after dismissal of the appeal vide order dtd.20.04.2022 under Annexure-3, the Bank proceeded with the de novo enquiry.

6.1. It is not disputed that during pendency of the matter before the Apex Court, Petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2021. However, after dismissal of the matter by the Apex

Court and on appointment of a fresh enquiry officer, the said enquiry officer for the first time issued a notice on 19.11.2022 under Annexure-16, directing the Petitioner to remain present for the purpose of enquiry and to produce various documents. Basing on such letter issued under Annexure-16 and the memo filed by the Petitioner under Annexure-17, Petitioner submitted a list of documents to be exhibited by him vide his letter dtd.13.02.2023 so exhibited by the enquiry officer as DE-01.

6.2. As found from the proceeding of the enquiry dtd.13.02.2023 so enclosed to I.A. No. 21811 of 2025, the Enquiry Officer when directed the Presenting Officer to produce the documents so desired by the Petitioner to be exhibited on his behalf and reflected in Annexure-22, the Presenting Officer while agreeing to such direction of the Enquiry Officer, contended that such documents which are available and relevant for the purpose of disposal of the proceeding will be produced by him.

6.3. In view of the admission made by the Presenting Officer before the Enquiry Officer in the proceeding of the enquiry dtd.13.02.2023, this Court is of the view that the Presenting Officer has to produce the documents, which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of the proceeding and subject to its availability before the Enquiry Officer in course of the enquiry.

6.4. So far as the prayer of the Petitioner to allow him to engage a defence representative, this Court considering the submission made by the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Bank, permits the Petitioner to engage an in-service employee of the Bank, if he so

desires, to represent him before the enquiry officer as his defence representative.

6.4. Since the proceeding is of the year 2003 and in the meantime more than 23 years have passed, this Court while disposing the writ petition with the aforesaid direction, directs the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No. 1 to conclude the proceeding as expeditiously as possible, preferably by the end of this year. Petitioner is however directed to cooperate in the enquiry as well as for disposal of the proceeding at every stage of the proceeding.

7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack