PER

KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J

We prelude this Judgment with what Khalil Gibran (1883-1931) rhapsodically writes:

“ ‘On Work’

…You work that you may keep pace with the earth and the soul of the earth. For to be idle is to become a stranger unto the seasons, and to step out of life's procession, that marches in majesty and proud submission towards the infinite. When you work you are a flute through whose heart the whispering of the hours turns to music. Which of you would be a reed, dumb and silent, when all else sings together in unison? Always you have been told that work is a curse and labour a misfortune. But I say to you that when you work you fulfill a part of earth's furthest dream, assigned to you when the dream was born, And in keeping yourself with labour you are in truth loving life, And to love life through labour is to be intimate with life's inmost secret… And if you cannot work with love but only with distaste, it is better that you should leave your work and sit at the gate of the temple and take alms of those who work with joy … ”¹Khalil Gibran’s The Prophet (1923).

This Intra-Court Appeal by a removed delinquent Bank Official seeks to call in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 11.09.2024 whereby her W.P.(C) No.5688 of 2022 has been negatived. In the said Petition, she had laid a challenge to the removal order dated 30.04.2021 and the Appellate order dated 27.01.2022 which affirmed the removal.

Learned counsel for the Appellant vehemently urged the following grounds for voiding the impugned order:

(a) The Appellant was disabled from reporting to Godhra Region of the Bank from Bhubaneswar Region pursuant to Transfer Order dated 29.06.2019, inasmuch as she had to look after her aged & ailing parents, who had none else to do that.

(b) The inquiry was farcically held in haste with no due opportunity of participation, and therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice.

(c) Even otherwise, removal from service on the ground of unauthorized absence is an extreme penalty, job being the only source of livelihood, and therefore, the same spurns the doctrine of proportionality.

Learned Panel counsel appearing for the Respondent-Bank resists the Appeal making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been structured. He contends that, an Intra-Court Appeal of the kind has got its own limitation and therefore, a deeper examination of the findings of the Disciplinary Authority, as affirmed by the Appellate Authority and later reaffirmed by the learned Single Judge, cannot be undertaken in this limited jurisdiction. He tells us that the moral standards inbuilt in Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for invoking writ jurisdiction have not been satisfied by the conduct & demeanor of the Appellant. Lastly, he tells us that once the finding of guilt is recorded in a duly constituted inquiry, the Court will not enter the domain of punishment, which exclusively is of the Disciplinary Authority.

Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and having pursued the Appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter, broadly agreeing with the submissions made on behalf of the Respondent-Bank as under:

4.1. Appellant joined the service of the Respondent–Bank as Junior Manager Group (JMG) Scale-I Officer w.e.f. 26.05.2011. All through she had been working only in Bhubaneswar Region. The transfer order dated 29.06.2019 shifting her from Bhubaneswar Region to Godhra Region was issued, which she did not abide by. She also remained absent unauthorizedly for quite a long period, eventually resulting into institution of Disciplinary Proceedings with her full participation, culminating into order of removal simpliciter. The only allegation being unauthorized absence, such a Disciplinary Proceeding cannot be long drawn, only to cater to the arguable need of delinquent. Admittedly, the proceedings were held for hours. Therefore, the first contention that the Proceeding has been