Advocates:
['M/S K C KANUNGO', '', 'HVBRK DORA', 'M/S BIMBISAR DASH', 'C MOHANTA', 'A NAYAK', 'M/S M BALAKRISHNA RAO', '', 'R K PATTNAIK']

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK.

W.P.(C) Nos. 10057 & 22133 of 2010

In the matter of application under Article 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India.

---------

Pravas Chandra Mohanty

(in W.P.(C) No.10057 of 2010)

Nitai Chandra Patnaik

(in W.P.(C) No.22133 of 2010)

…… Petitioners.

- Versus-

ING Vysya Bank Limited and Others (in both the cases)

…

Opposite Parties

Counsel for Petitioners : M/s. K. C. Kanungo, HVBRK Dora; M/s.

Bimbisar Dash, Chhabilendu Mohanta & A.

Nayak (in W.P.(C) No.10057 of 2010).

M/s. Sudarshan Nanda, S. P. Panda, S.

Pattnaik, R. R. Swain (in W.P.(C) No.22133 of

2010).

Counsel for Opp.Parties : M/s. M. Balkrishna Rao and R. K. Pattnaik

(in both the cases)

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

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

Date of hearing and judgment: 08.08.2018

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

S. N. Prasad, J.

Since the issue pertains in both the writ petitions are similar in

nature, both the writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by

this common order.

2.

W.P.(C) No.10057 of 2010 has been filed challenging the

memorandum of charge dtd.12.3.2008, Enquiry Report dtd.3.11.2008,

punishment order dtd.30.12.2008, appellate order dtd.17.06.2009 and the

2

order passed on 26.2.2010 whereby and where under the petitioner has been

inflicted with the punishment of compulsory retirement

which

has

been confirmed by the higher authorities.

W.P.(C) No.22133 of 2010 has been filed challenging the show-

cause notice under Annexure-1, order dtd.1.3.2010 under Annexure-2,

appellate order dtd.28.6.2010 under Annexure-5 and the revisional order

dtd.27.8.2010 under Annexure-7 whereby and where under the petitioner has

been terminated from service which has been confirmed by the higher

authorities.

3.

The petitioners who were working in the ING Vysya Bank Ltd.,

Bhubaneswar assailed the charge-sheet, enquiry report and the order of

punishment inter alia on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice,

thereby invoked the jurisdiction of this court conferred under Article 226 of

the constitution of India.

4.

The opposite party – Bank has appeared and raised serious

objection regarding maintainability of writ petitions by putting reliance upon

the judgment rendered by Hon‟ble Apex court in the case of Federal Bank

Ltd. Vrs. Sagar Thomas and Others, reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court

4325.

5.

This court, while hearing the matter on 16.5.2018, has passed

an order providing an opportunity to the learned counsel for the petitioners to

argue on maintainability of the writ petitions, pursuant to the same, learned

counsel for the petitioners has argued out the case by submitting that the writ

petitions are maintainable since there is violation of principle of natural

justice and the ratio laid down in the case of Federal Bank Ltd. (supra) is not

3

applicable in the facts and circumstances of their cases since according to

them, the aforesaid judgment has been rendered in

the

context

of

provision of Article 12 of the Constitution of India but here the question of

maintainability is to be tested on the basis of the principles as to whether the

opposite party - Bank is coming under the fold of other public authorities or

not.

According to them, the bank is coming under the fold of other

public authority and since the Constitution mandates that before taking any

action which is having its civil consequence, the principle of natural justice is

to be followed and since in these writ petitions the principle of natural justice

has not been followed, as such the writ petitions are maintainable.

6.

This