Back
2022 Supreme(Ori) 495
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
V. Narasingh, J.
Jagannath Behera – Appellant
Versus
Utkal Grameen Bank & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) NO.12039 of 2004 (An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India).
Decided On : 11-10-2022
Mr. D. Lenka, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. P.V. Balkrishna, Advocate, for the Respondent
The court emphasized the duty of the Appellate Authority to consider relevant materials and discharge its duty in a disciplinary proceeding.
Headnote:
Disciplinary Proceeding - Utkal Grameen Bank - [Charge sheet & reply, Defence brief, Prosecution brief, Enquiry Findings, Speaking order, Reply to show cause, Legal opinion, Final punishment order, Officer order by Sri A. Nayak, Branch Manager, Representation of Sri Behera for not to appoint Sri P.K. Sahoo as Enquiry Officer, Legal opinion on Sri P.K. Sahu, Enquiry Officer, FIR and appeal made by Sri Behera] - The court found that the Appellate Authority failed to discharge its duty and allowed its judgment to be clouded by irrelevant material. The matter was relegated to the level of Appellate Authority to take a fresh decision regarding the punishment imposed against the Petitioner, keeping in view the submission in the Writ Petition along with the stand of the Bank as quoted above.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, a Scale-1 Officer of the erstwhile Utkal Grameen Bank, Semiliguda, assailed the order of degradation to lower stage in his incremental scale and treating the suspension period 'as not on duty'. The Petitioner preferred an appeal to the Board and the Appellate Authority modified the punishment by 'granting two more increments' on the present basic pay scale of the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition assailing the disciplinary authority order & appellate order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Appellate Authority failed to discharge its duty and allowed its judgment to be clouded by irrelevant material. The matter was relegated to the level of Appellate Authority to take a fresh decision regarding the punishment imposed against the Petitioner, keeping in view the submission in the Writ Petition along with the stand of the Bank as quoted above.
Issues: The issues revolved around the punishment imposed on the Petitioner and the Appellate Authority's failure to consider relevant materials and discharge its duty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Appellate Authority failed to discharge its duty and allowed its judgment to be clouded by irrelevant material, leading to the matter being relegated to the level of Appellate Authority for a fresh decision.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition stands disposed of, and the matter is relegated to the level of Appellate Authority to take a fresh decision regarding the punishment imposed against the Petitioner.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the following key points are relevant:
-
The case involves a disciplinary proceeding against the Petitioner, a former officer of Utkal Grameen Bank, regarding allegations of misconduct related to fraudulent activities at the bank branch (!) (!) .
-
The disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of degradation and treated the suspension period as not on duty. The Petitioner appealed this decision, and the appellate authority modified the punishment by granting two additional increments on the Petitioner’s salary, while upholding the original punishment (!) (!) .
-
The court found that the appellate authority failed to properly discharge its duty, specifically by not considering relevant materials and allowing its judgment to be influenced by irrelevant material. The appellate order was deemed non-speaking and perfunctory, lacking proper application of mind (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
The appellate authority's assumption that the entire fraud involved a higher amount than supported by the evidence was a significant error. The actual involvement was limited to specific transactions and amounts, which were not adequately considered (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasized that judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to ensuring fairness and adherence to procedural rules, not re-evaluating evidence or substituting its own judgment. The authority's decision must be based on evidence and follow natural justice (!) (!) (!) .
-
The court noted that the appellate authority’s approach was arbitrary and lacked reasonableness, leading to the decision being set aside and the matter being remanded for a fresh decision by the appellate authority, with specific instructions to consider all relevant materials properly (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
The Petitioner’s submission highlighted that the misconduct involved negligence and that the Petitioner had acted in reporting irregularities, which should have been considered in the overall assessment of guilt and punishment (!) (!) .
-
The court observed that since the Petitioner had retired, the appellate authority’s reconsideration should be completed within four months from the receipt of the judgment, to ensure justice and fairness (!) (!) .
Would you like assistance in drafting a legal opinion, advising on procedural steps, or any other specific legal service based on this case?
JUDGMENT
V. Narasingh, J. - Heard Mr. D. Lenka, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. P.V. Balkrishna, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.
2. The Petitioner, who was working as Scale-1 Officer of the erstwhile Utkal Grameen Bank, Semiliguda, has assailed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 22.05.2001 at Annexure-10 whereby he was awarded the punishment of degradation to lower stage in his incremental scale i.e. Rs.2100/- + allowances and treating the suspension period 'as not on duty'.
3. Assailing the same, the Petitioner preferred an appeal to the Board and the Appellate Authority by order dated 03.12.2003 at Annexure-12, while affirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority modified the punishment by 'granting two more increments' on the present basic pay scale of the Petitioner, while not interfering with the direction to treat the suspension period not as on duty.
4. Assailing the disciplinary authority order & appellate order at Annexure-10 & 12 respectively, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
5. It is apt to note here that during pendency of the litigation, the status of Koraput Panchbati Gramya Bank where the Petitioner served during the period when he was proceeded against has amalgamated with Utkal Grameen Bank and the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority post amalgamation have been arrayed as Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the finding of the Enquiry Officer vis-a-vis each of the charge is not based on the cogent materials inasmuch as the specific defence vis-a-vis each of the charge has not been considered in its proper perspective. Hence, the very imposition of the punishment by the Disciplinary Authority, after consideration of his show cause was shockingly disproportionate.
7. Assailing such order, the Petitioner preferred an appeal and the memorandum of appeal is at Annexure-11.
8. On a bare perusal of the memorandum of appeal, it can be seen that the Petitioner has preferred a detailed appeal adverting to each of the charges and finding of the Enquiry Officer.
9. As noted above, the order of the Appellate Authority dated 03.12.2003 is at Annexure-12.
10. For convenience of ready reference the order passed by the Board in exercising the appellate power is extracted hereunder.
'The Board has carefully considered the appeal dated 27.06.2021 preferred by Sri Jagannath Behera, O.S.I. against the penalty imposed by the Chairman and Disciplinary Authority in terms of an order dated 22.05.2021 in connection with fraud at Bank's Semiliguda branch amounting to Rs.21,07,300.00 2) The Board has perused specially the following mentioned papers/documents relating to the case and other relevant papers.
i. Charge sheet & reply
ii. Defence brief,
iii. Prosecution brief
iv. Enquiry Findings
v. Speaking order
vi. Reply to show cause
vii. Legal opinion
viii. Final punishment order
ix. Officer order by Sri A. Nayak, Branch Manager
x. Representation of Sri Behera for not to appoint Sri P.K. Sahoo as Enquiry Officer
xi. Legal opinion on Sri P.K. Sahu, Enquiry Officer
xii.FIR and appeal made by Sri Behera
3) The observation of the Board after going through the above records is as under:-
'The punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority is upheld till date'
4) In view of the foregoing and considering the gravity of misconduct the Board has decided to grant two more stages on his present basic pay scale with effect from the date of decision i.e. from 03.12.2003.
Signed by :
Asst. General Manager, (RRBs), SBI, LHO, Bhubaneswar Asst. General Manager, NABARD, Koraput Asst. General Manager, RBI, Bhubaneswar Asst. General Manager, SBI, Regional Office, Jeypore Project Director, D.R.D.A., Koraput Shri Kailash Hotel, Member Director N.B.:- Board means the Board of Directors of the Koraput Panchabati Gramya Bank as above except the Chairman, Koraput Panchabati Gramya Bank.'
11. On a bare perusal of the order of the Appellate Authority, it can
