IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.2261 of 2024 Bank of India and others …. Appellants -Versus-

Hajam Charan Tudu …. Respondent Advocates appeared in this case:

For Appellants : Mr. Asok Mohanty, Senior Advocate Mr. Karunakar Jena, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sidheswar Mallik, Advocate CORAM:

HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

J U D G M E N T

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of hearing and judgment: 13^th May, 2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HARISH TANDON, CJ.

1. The judgment of the learned single Judge is assailed in the instant appeal at the behest of the appellants on multiple counts namely, the learned single Judge ought not to have substituted itself as the disciplinary authority by re-appreciating the evidence nor could have proceeded to set aside the punishment inflicted upon the respondent on the ground of bias and/or violation of the principle of natural justice.

2. Admittedly, the respondent was served with a notice contemplating to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against him for the misconduct reflected in the articles of charges and the statement leading to it in not only the disbursement of the amount but opening of the accounts by using the password, which is exclusively allotted to each of the employees of the bank. The disciplinary proceeding continued in presence of the respondent and amidst the pendency thereof, certain documents were sought by the respondent, which were admittedly not provided to him. Perceiving the same to be a blatant violation of the principle of natural justice, the challenges thrown to the entire disciplinary proceeding, which culminated into an order of dismissal, the writ petition was filed and the learned single Judge has set aside the said order, which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal.

3. Mr. Asok Mohanty, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants fervently submits that mere violation of principle of natural justice does not ipso facto render the decision infirm and/or illegal unless a prejudice is shown by the delinquent in not supplying the documents as requisitioned by him from the disciplinary authority. He further submits that the imputation of the charges is grave in the prospective of banking business, where the public money is involved and any disbursement of the amount without the instruction or sanction of the proper authority is always viewed as a serious misconduct. He further submits that a bank employee is not expected to disclose the password allotted exclusively to him to be used for opening of an account, which was subsequently found to be a fraudulent one and, therefore, such misconduct is not pardonable or condonable and there is no infirmity and/or illegality on the part of the authority in imposing the major penalty.

4. Mr. Sidheswar Mallik, learned counsel for the respondent submits that during the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding, the documents which were requisitioned, were never supplied and, therefore, the authorities not only acted with a pre-determined mind akin to bias but also in flagrant violation of the principle of natural justice. He further submits that there is no pecuniary loss suffered by the bank even such allegation is perceived to be incorrect, therefore, the documents, which the respondent felt necessary during the disciplinary proceeding, if not provided, is a violation of principle of natural justice and causes severe prejudice to the respondent.

5. On the conspectus of the aforesaid undisputed facts and the submissions so advanced before us by the respective counsel let us examine whether the judgment of the learned single Judge warrants any interference on the settled legal parameters occupying the field of service jurisprudence.

6. It is no longer res integra that the disciplinary proceeding shall be treated to have been vitiated if the same is con