Back
2019 Supreme(Ori) 531
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.R. SARANGI, J.
Bikash Sethy – Appellant
Versus
Odisha Gramya Bank Bhubaneswar & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 13755 of 2016
Decided on : 09-07-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Asok Mohanty, Sr. Adv., M/s. B. Senapati & M.K. Panda.
For the Respondent: M/s. K.C. Kanungo & H.V.B.R.K. Dora,
A termination during probation can be illegal if it is punitive and not simpliciter, and compliance with natural justice principles is essential.
Headnote:
Termination - Probationer - Neelachal Gramya Bank Officers’ and Employees Service Regulation, 2010 - [State Bank of India V. Palak Modi, (2013) 3 SCC 607; Ajit Singh V. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC 217; Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, Lucknow, U.P., V. Prakash Chandra Saxena, (1994) 5 SCC 177; Radheshyam Gupta V. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., (1999) 2 SCC 21 : AIR 1999 SC 609; and State of Uttar Pradesh V. Kausal Kishore Sukla, (1991) 1 SCC 691]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Scale-II Officer of Odisha Gramya Bank, was terminated without a hearing and compliance of natural justice principles. The petitioner's satisfactory performance during probation was followed by termination due to alleged misconduct and unsatisfactory performance.
Finding of the Court:
The termination was found to be stigmatic and punitive, not simpliciter, as it was issued without compliance of natural justice principles. The court quashed the termination and rejection of appeal orders.
Issues: The issues revolved around the termination of a probationer without compliance of natural justice principles, the nature of the termination order, and the alleged misconduct and unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a termination during probation can be illegal if it is issued as a punitive measure for alleged misconduct, and compliance with natural justice principles is essential. The court also emphasized the distinction between a termination simpliciter and a punitive termination.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the termination and rejection of appeal orders.
JUDGMENT :
B.R. SARANGI, J.
The petitioner, who was a Scale-II Officer of Odisha Gramya Bank, has filed this writ application to quash the order of his termination dated 18.10.2013 in Annexure-9 and consequential order of rejection of his appeal by the appellate authority dated 30.06.2016 in Annexure-10, which was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing and compliance of principles of natural justice.
2. The brief facts of the case in hand is that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community. On being duly selected for the post of Officer Scale-I, on 29.09.2008 he was posted as Probationary Officer in the Oriental Bank of Commerce at Dhamtari in the State of Chhatishgarh, where he continued as an officer till 11.01.2012. After completion of probation period, as is evident from the certificate issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce dated 11.01.2012 in Annexure-1, while the petitioner was so working, he came across an advertisement issued by the Neelachal Gramya Bank, Bhubaneswar (after merger with Baitarani Gramya Bank renamed as “Odisha Gramya Bank”) for filling up the post of ‘Officer MMGS-II’. Being desirous to work in the State of Odisha, he applied for the said post and appeared in the written test held on 12.06.2011. On being successful in the written test, he appeared in viva voce test and was selected. Consequentially, vide order dated 12.01.2012, he was appointed as Manager in Talcher Branch in the scale of pay of Rs.19,400/-.
2.1. While the petitioner was continuing as Manager at Talcher, he passed Junior Associate Indian Institute of Banking (JAIIB) on 26.11.2012. As a consequence of which, he got one increment and his basic pay became Rs.20,100/-. Thereafter, he was transferred to Unit-I Branch at Bhubaneswar on 05.06.2012 and again to Unit-IV Branch on 31.12.2012. Due to his satisfactory service he got an increment and his basic pay became Rs.20,900/- on 30.01.2013. The petitioner, on 29.04.2013, passed Certified Associate Indian Institute of Banking (CAIIB) for which he got another increment and his basic salary became Rs.21,700/-. On 21.07.2013, he was transferred to Kendrapara Branch, which is a Regional Branch, where he joined on 31.07.2013, and opposite party no.3-Regional Manager posted him at Jajpur, where the petitioner joined on the same day, i.e., 31.07.2013.
2.2. After joining at Jajpur Branch, the petitioner faced a lot of problems to the extent that opposite party no.4-Branch Manager asked the petitioner to grant indiscriminate agricultural loans under Kissan Credit Card (KCC) even without “no due certificate” to which the petitioner refused. Consequentially, the Branch Manager took the same amiss and instigated opposite party no.3 against the petitioner to oust him from the bank. On instigation of opposite party no.4, opposite party no.3 wrote letter to the petitioner alleging that he was remaining unauthorized absent from the Branch and cautioned him to be attentive and regular in duties. This letter was fabricated just to create an adverse document during his probation period though he was not absent in the Branch even in a single day from the date of his joining.
2.3. On 05.09.2013, Kartika Chandra Nayak, applied for agricultural loan under KCC to opposite party no.4-Branch Manager, who forwarded the said application to the petitioner, without “no due certificate”, and told him to process the loan and open the account, to which the petitioner refused. As the Branch Manager-opposite party no.4 pressurized the petitioner to disburse loan without “no due certificate”, the petitioner wrote letter to opposite party no.3-Regional Manager on 23.09.2013 seeking his guidance. Opposite party no.3, instead of giving guidance, sought explanation from the petitioner on 20.09.2013 regarding his absence from the Branch on 17.09.2013, and moving at Regional Branch, Chandikhol at 5.30 P.M., alleging the same to be gross indiscipline. Before giving reply to the aforesaid notice, opposite party no.3 again on 1
