Orissa HC Upholds Bank Manager's Dismissal; Confirms Limited Scope of Judicial Review in Disciplinary Proceedings Where Procedural Pleas Are Waived. - 2025-11-03

Orissa High Court Upholds UCO Bank Manager's Dismissal, Reaffirms Limited Scope of Judicial Review

CUTTACK, ODISHA – The Orissa High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a former UCO Bank manager, Bidyadhar Mallick, challenging his dismissal from service over financial irregularities committed between 2003 and 2006. The Court, led by Justice Murahari Sri Raman, reinforced the principle that judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited and courts should not act as appellate authorities, especially when procedural objections are not raised at the appropriate time.

---

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Bidyadhar Mallick, who had a long career with UCO Bank since 1984, was dismissed in December 2010 following a departmental inquiry. The charges against him stemmed from his tenure as Branch Manager at the Jamsuli Branch from June 2003 to August 2006.

A charge sheet issued in May 2010 listed seventeen allegations of irregularities, including sanctioning loans beyond his delegated authority, failing to follow banking procedures, engaging unauthorized persons to handle bank records, and sanctioning a fraudulent loan. These actions were deemed to be in violation of Regulation 3 of the UCO Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, which mandates utmost integrity, honesty, and diligence.

Following an inquiry where the charges were proven, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the major penalty of dismissal, which was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Authority in April 2011. Mallick then approached the High Court, challenging these orders as illegal and the punishment as disproportionately severe.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioner's Contentions: Mr. Surendra Nath Panda, counsel for the petitioner, primarily argued on three grounds during the hearing: 1. Procedural Violation: The inquiry officer allegedly violated Regulation 6(17) of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976, by not properly questioning the petitioner on the evidence against him. 2. Time-Barred Proceedings: The disciplinary proceedings were initiated 4-5 years after the alleged incidents, which, he argued, was beyond the limitation period suggested by a Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) document on vigilance management in public sector banks. 3. Disproportionate Punishment: The penalty of dismissal was "grossly and shockingly disproportionate" to the nature of the allegations.

Respondent's Defence: Representing UCO Bank, Mr. Bibekananda Udgata countered that: 1. Full Compliance: The principles of natural justice were followed at every stage. The petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend himself, and the inquiry proceedings register showed he was questioned and had examined himself. 2. Limitation Inapplicable: The plea of limitation was raised for the first time in a rejoinder affidavit and was based on a non-statutory CVC document. Furthermore, the document itself provided an exception for cases involving "fraud," which was one of the proven allegations. 3. Severity of Misconduct: The petitioner’s admissions during the inquiry—such as not knowing the loan policy or his delegated powers—and his act of sanctioning a fraudulent loan constituted serious misconduct, justifying the dismissal.

Court’s Analysis and Ruling

Justice Murahari Sri Raman conducted a thorough analysis of the case records, including the inquiry proceedings register, before arriving at a decision.

On Procedural Lapses: The Court found the petitioner's argument regarding procedural violations to be without merit. It noted that this plea was never raised before the Disciplinary or Appellate authorities, nor in the original writ petition. Scrutiny of the record revealed that the petitioner was indeed questioned and had cooperated with the inquiry, represented by a defence counsel. The Court observed, “A mandatory provision conceived in the interest of a party can be waived by that party... wherever a complaint of violation of a mandatory provision is made, this Court is required to enquire— in whose interest is the provision conceived.” Since the plea was not raised earlier, it was deemed waived.

On Limitation: The Court refused to entertain the argument on limitation, citing that it was a mixed question of law and fact raised belatedly. The authenticity and statutory force of the CVC document relied upon by the petitioner were not established. Moreover, the Court highlighted the "fraud" exception in the document, noting the Disciplinary Authority's finding on a fraudulent loan transaction.

On Quantum of Punishment and Scope of Judicial Review: The Court extensively cited Supreme Court precedents to delineate the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters. It emphasized that courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute their own judgment for that of the disciplinary authority unless the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or the punishment is shockingly disproportionate.

A key excerpt from the judgment reads:

"The determination of whether a misconduct has been committed lies primarily within the domain of the disciplinary authority. The Judge does not assume the mantle of the disciplinary authority... The ultimate guide is the exercise of robust common sense without which the Judges‟ craft is in vain."

The Court found that the petitioner’s actions, including admitting ignorance of loan policies and sanctioning loans beyond his authority, constituted grave misconduct that eroded the credibility and public confidence in the banking system.

Final Decision

Concluding that there were no procedural infirmities, perversity in findings, or grounds to interfere with the punishment, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The orders of the Disciplinary and Appellate authorities were upheld, confirming Mr. Bidyadhar Mallick's dismissal from UCO Bank.