MANAMOHAN PATTANAIK vs ODISHA GRAMYA BANK,BBSR
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C ) No.26863 of 2017
In the matter of an application under Article-226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India
………………
Manamohan Pattanaik
….
Petitioner
-versus-
Odisha Gramya Bank, BBSR
& Others
…. Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : M/s. K. Pattanaik, Adv.
For Opp. Parties : M/s. S.K. Nanda,Adv.
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 08.10.2026 and Date of Judgment:08.10.2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J .
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard Mr.K. Pattanaik, learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.K. Nanda,
learned counsel appearing for the Opp Party-Bank.
// 2 //
3. Pursuant to order dtd.17.08.2026, learned
counsel appearing for the Opp. party-Bank produced
the proceeding file in Court for perusal. This Court
after going through the same finds that the Inquiry
Officer after examining the witnesses on behalf of the
th
Management in its 20 sitting on 21.08.2015, closed
the proceeding and submitted the report on
05.05.2016, so forwarded vide letter dtd.13.05.2016
under Annexure-6, to the Petitioner to give his reply.
4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
with the following prayer:
“Therefore, it is prayed that your Lordships
would be pleased to issue Rule Nisi calling upon
the Opp. Parties to show cause as why the
impugned orders under Annexure-8 passed by
Disciplinary Authority-cum-Chairman and
appellate order as communicated by Disciplinary
Authority-cum-Chairman under Annexures-8 & 10
should not be quashed.
And
If the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or
show insufficient or false cause make the rule nisi
absolute.
And
Any other relief or reliefs this Hon’ble Court
deem think fit and proper.
5. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated
against the Petitioner vide charge-sheet
dtd.15.10.2013 under Annexure-1, Petitioner made a
Page 2 of 19
// 3 //
grievance on 25.10.2013 under Annexure-2 with a
request to provide him various documents. On the
face of such request made by the Petitioner on
25.10.2013 and 06.11.2013 under Annexure-2
series, vide letter dtd.22.11.2013 under Annexure-3,
Petitioner was advised to submit his reply to the
charges without any further delay.
5.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that since in the charge-sheet
dtd.15.10.2013 under Annexure-1, various charges
were framed against the Petitioner, in absence of the
documents being provided, Petitioner could not file
his reply/written statement of defence and was
prejudiced from the very initiation of the proceeding.
However, without providing the documents and with
the advice to file the reply vide letter dtd.22.11.2013
under Annexure-3, the Bank appointed the Inquiry
Officer vide order dtd.19.05.2014 under Annexure-4.
Accordingly, the Inquiry Officer proceeded with the
th
inquiry and completed the same in its 20 sitting on
Page 3 of 19
// 4 //
21.08.2015, after examination of the Management
witnesses in support of the charges.
5.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
vehemently contended that since after initiation of
the proceeding, Petitioner was never provided with
the documents, so prayed for vide letter
dtd.25.10.2013 and 06.11.2013 under Annexure-2
series and the Inquiry Officer without permitting the
Petitioner to file his documents and so also the
witnesses in support of his stand, closed the inquiry
after examination of the Management witness on
21.08.2015, basing on such inquiry report
submitted under Annexure-6, Petitioner could not
have been imposed with the punishment of dismissal
vide order dtd.10.06.2016 under Annexure-8.
5.3. It is contended that Petitioner was prejudiced
from the very beginning because of non-supply of the
documents, even though the charges were serious in
nature and were also with regard to various
transactions made by the Petitioner in his capacity
Page 4 of 19
// 5 //
while continuing under the Bank as a
Senior Manager.
5.4. Not only that, Petitioner was also prejudiced by
the action of the Inquiry Officer, in closing the
inquiry after examination of the witnesses from the
Management side on 21.08.2015, without giving an
opportunity to the Petitioner to provide his
documents with examination of the witnesses on his
behalf. It is also contended that the Inquiry Officer
in his report under Annexure-6, also admits the fact
that the Petitioner has not produced any document
nor examined any witnesses. However, it is
contended that Petitioner at no point of time filed any
application expressing his intention not to provide
the documents nor to examine any witness in
support of his defence before the Inquiry Officer.
Not only that, request made by the Petitioner in
his letter dtd.18.03.2026 under Annexure-12 to
allow him to examine his witness was not accepted
by the Enquiry Officer, so communicated vide letter
dtd.01.04.2016 under Annexure-13.
Page 5 of 19
// 6 //
5.5. It is contended that challenging such order of
dismissal passed under Annexure-8, Petitioner
though moved the Board of Directors of the Bank by
filing an Appeal under Annexure-9, but the Appellate
authority without proper appreciation of the ground
of appeal rejected the appeal vide order
dted.12.12.2016 under Annexure-10. It is further
contended that the appellate authority rejected the
appeal by a non-speaking order and that too without
assigning any reason for not agreeing with the stand
taken in the appeal.
5.6. It is further contended that even though
Petitioner never filed his reply to the charges because
of non-supply of the documents, but the Appellate
authority in the order under Annexure-10, held that
he has gone through the reply filed by the Petitioner
to the charge-sheet, which is not a fact. It is
accordingly contended that the Appellate authority
rejected the appeal vide order under Annexure-10,
without proper application of mind and without
Page 6 of 19
// 7 //
considering the grounds taken in the memo of
Appeal, so filed under Annexure-9.
5.7. Making all these submission, learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioner contended that the
impugned punishment of dismissal so passed by the
Disciplinary authority under Annexure-8, confirmed
by the Appellate authority vide order under
Annexure-10 requires interference of this Court. In
support of the submission, reliance was placed to the
following decisions:
1. Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v.
Jagdish Sharan Varshney and Others , (2009) 4 SCC
240.
2. Sujata Panigrahi, Chairman, Local Board of
Administration and another, 2017 (Supp.-I) OLR-467.
3. Narottam Pati Vs North Eastern Supply Company &
Others, 2017 (Supp.-I) OLR 479.
4. Anil Gilurker VS. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya
Gramin Bank and Another, (2011) 14 Supreme Court
cases 379.
5. Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat &
Another, (2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases 301.
6. Allhabad Bank and Others Vs. Krishna
Narayan Tewari, AIR 2017 SC 330
Page 7 of 19
// 8 //
5.8. In the case of Jagdish Sharan Varshney ,
Hon’ble Apex Court in para-5,8 & 9 of the aforesaid
judgment has held as follows:
5. In our opinion, an order of affirmation need
not contain as elaborate reasons as an order of
reversal, but that does not mean that the order of
affirmation need not contain any reasons
whatsoever. In fact, the said decision in Prabhu
Dayal Grover case [(1995) 6 SCC 279 : 1995
SCC (L&S) 1376 : (1995) 31 ATC 492] has itself
stated that the appellate order should disclose
application of mind. Whether there was an
application of mind or not can only be disclosed
by some reasons, at least in brief, mentioned in
the order of the appellate authority. Hence, we
cannot accept the proposition that an order of
affirmation need not contain any reasons at all.
That order must contain some reasons, at least
in brief, so that one can know whether the
appellate authority has applied its mind while
affirming the order of the disciplinary authority.
xxx xxx xxx
8. The purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held
by a Constitution Bench of this Court in S.N.
Mukherjee v. Union of India [(1990) 4 SCC 594 :
1990 SCC (Cri) 669] , is that people must have
confidence in the judicial or quasi-judicial
authorities. Unless reasons are disclosed, how
can a person know whether the authority has
applied its mind or not? Also, giving of reasons
minimises the chances of arbitrariness. Hence, it
is an essential requirement of the rule of law that
some reasons, at least in brief, must be
disclosed in a judicial or quasi-judicial order,
even if it is an order of affirmation.
9. No doubt, in S.N. Mukherjee case [(1990) 4
SCC 594 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 669] it has been
observed that: (SCC p. 613, para 36)
“36. … The appellate or revisional authority, if it
affirms such an order, need not give separate
reasons if the appellate or revisional authority
agrees with the reasons contained in the order
under challenge.”
Page 8 of 19
// 9 //
The above observation, in our opinion, really
means that the order of affirmance need not
contain an elaborate reasoning as contained in
the order of the original authority, but it cannot
be understood to mean that even brief reasons
need not be given in an order of affirmance. To
take a contrary view would mean that appellate
authorities can simply dismiss appeals by one-
line orders stating that they agree with the view
of the lower authority.
5.9. In the case of Sujata Panigrahi , this Court in
para-15 & 16 of the said judgment has held as follows:
15. In Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor, AIR
1974 SC 87 it has been held that reasons are
the links between the materials on which certain
conclusions are based and the actual
conclusions. They disclose how the mind is
applied to the subject-matter for a decision
whether it is purely administrative or quasi-
judicial and reveal a rational nexus between the
facts considered and conclusions reached. The
reasons assure an inbuilt support to the
conclusion and decision 8 reached. Recording of
reasons is also an assurance that the authority
concerned applied its mind to the facts on record.
It is vital for the purpose of showing a person
that he is receiving justice. Similar view has also
been taken in Uma Charan v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 1915.
16. Reasons being a necessary concomitant to
passing an order, the appellate authority can
thus discharge its duty in a meaningful manner
either by furnishing the same expressly or by
necessary reference to those given by the
original authority. Similar view has also been
taken in Patitapaban Pala v. Orissa Forest
Development Corporation Ltd. & another, 2017 (I)
OLR 5 and Banambar Parida v. Orissa Forest
Development Corporation Limited and others,
2017 (I) OLR 625. Applying these principles to
the present context, since neither the disciplinary
authority, nor the appellate authority, has
assigned any reason, the orders passed by them
cannot sustain.
Page 9 of 19
// 10 //
5.10. In the case of Anil Gilurker
, Hon’ble Apex Court
in para-13 & 14 of the said judgment has held as follows:
13. As has been held by this Court in Surath
Chandra Chakrabarty v. State of W.B. [(1970) 3
SCC 548] : (SCC p. 553, para 5)
“5. … The grounds on which it is proposed to
take action have to be reduced to the form of a
definite charge or charges which have to be
communicated to the person charged together
with a statement of the allegations on which
each charge is based and any other
circumstance which is proposed to be taken into
consideration in passing orders has also to be
stated. This rule embodies a principle which is
one of the basic contents of a reasonable or
adequate opportunity for defending oneself. If a
person is not told clearly and definitely what the
allegations are on which the charges preferred
against him are founded he cannot possibly, by
projecting his own imagination, discover all the
facts and circumstances that may be in the
contemplation of the authorities to be established
against him.”
14. This position of law has been reiterated in
the recent case of Union of India v. Gyan Chand
Chattar [(2009) 12 SCC 78 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S)
129] and in para 35 of the judgment as reported
in SCC, this Court has observed that the law can
be summarised that an enquiry is to be
conducted against any person giving strict
adherence to the statutory provisions and
principles of natural justice and the charges
should be specific, definite and giving details of
the incident which formed the basis of charges
and no enquiry can be sustained on vague
charges.
6. Mr. S.K. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the
Opp. Party-Bank on the other hand made his
summation basing on the stand taken in the counter
affidavit so filed.
Page 10 of 19
// 11 //
It is contended that the proceeding in question
was initiated against the Petitioner in terms of the
provisions contained under the Odisha Gramya Bank
(Officers’ and Employees’ Service) Regulation, 2010.
The guideline for conduct of the proceeding for
imposition of major penalty, is provided under
Regulation 39(b) of the Regulation, 2010 which reads
as follows:
Major Penalties
(i) fine;
(ii) withholding of increment(s) for a period
exceeding 6 months;
(iiiv) withdrawal of special allowance;
(iv) reduction of pay to next lower stage upto a
maximum period of two years in case the staff
has reached the maximum in the scale of pay;
(v) removal from service which shall not be a
disqualification for future employment;
(vi) dismissal:
Provided that no mano penalties as specified in
items (i) to (v0) of clause (b) of sub-regulation (2) of
regulation 39 shall be imposed by the Competent
Authority unless,-
(i) an order in writing signed by the competent
authority and no such order shall be passed
without the charge(s) being framed in writing and
given to the employee and enquiry held;
(ii) giving him reasonable opportunity to answer
the charge(s) in writing, and defend himself.
Page 11 of 19
// 12 //
Provided further that an enquiry need not be held
if,-
(i) the misconduct is such that even if proved, the
Bank does not intend to impose punishment of
removal or dismissal; and
(ii) the Bank has issued a show cause notice to
the employee advising him of the misconduct and
the punishment for which he may be liable for
such misconduct; and
(iii) the employee makes a voluntary admission of
his guilt in his rely to the aforesaid show cause
notice.
6.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party-
Bank contended that after receipt of the charge-
sheet, Petitioner since never filed his reply to the
charges and participated in the inquiry, the Inquiry
Officer proceeded with the inquiry with submission of
the report under Annexure-6. It is also contended
that Petitioner was given due opportunity to cross-
examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the
Management by the Inquiry Officer.
6.2. It is contended that since Petitioner never filed
his reply to the charge-sheet, the Inquiry Officer
thought it proper not to permit the Petitioner to
examine any witness and closed the inquiry on
21.08.2015, after examination of the witnesses on
Page 12 of 19
// 13 //
behalf of the Management. It is further contended
that no such application was ever made by the
Petitioner praying inter alia that he wants to examine
any witness in support of his claim. Accordingly, it
is contended that since Petitioner never filed his
reply to the charges and participated in the inquiry
and before the Inquiry Officer no application was
ever filed that he wants to examine any witness, no
fault can be found with the Enquiry Officer in
submitting the inquiry report under Annexure-6,
wherein the Inquiry Officer found the Petitioner
guilty of the charges.
6.3. It is further contended that after receipt of the
enquiry report, Petitioner was given due opportunity
to file his reply, which the Petitioner also filed under
Annexure-7. The Disciplinary Authority after due
consideration of the reply made by the Petitioner
under Annexure-7, the nature of charges framed
against the Petitioner under Annexure-1 and the
report submitted by the Enquiry Officer under
Annexure-6, passed the order of dismissal vide his
Page 13 of 19
// 14 //
order dtd.10.06.2016 under Annexure-8, taking into
account the gravity of the charges.
6.4. It is further contended that even though
Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of
Directors-Opp. party No.3, but the Appellate
authority after going through the materials, rejected
the same vide order dtd.12.12.2016 under Annexure-
10. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner
never filed his reply to the charges and never made a
prayer before the Inquiry Officer to examine any
witnesses on his behalf, on the face of the Petitioner
being found guilty of the charges by the Inquiry
Officer, the Disciplinary Authority in terms of the
Regulation, proceeded with the matter and imposed
the punishment of dismissal from service vide order
under Annexure-8. It is accordingly contended that
no illegality or irregularity can be found with the
order under Annexure-8 and consequential rejection
of the appeal under Annexure-10.
6.5. Making all these submissions, learned counsel
appearing for the Opp. Party-Bank contended that no
Page 14 of 19
// 15 //
interference is called for with regard to the order of
punishment.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submission made, this Court finds
that Petitioner while continuing under suspension as
a Senior Manager, the proceeding in question was
initiated vide charge-sheet dtd.15.10.2013 under
Annexure-1. The said proceeding was initiated in
terms of the provisions contained under the 2010
Regulation.
7.1. As found, after receipt of the charge-sheet,
Petitioner though made a request on 25.10.2013 and
06.11.2013 under Annexure-2 for providing him with
the documents so that he can file his reply before
Opp. party No.2, but vide letter dtd.22.11.2013
under Annexure-3, the Disciplinary Authority
directed the Petitioner to file his reply to the charge-
sheet without any further delay.
7.2. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority appointed
the Inquiry Officer vide order dtd.19.05.2014 under
Annexure-4 and the Inquiry Officer proceeded with
Page 15 of 19
// 16 //
the inquiry. As found, the Inquiry Officer conducted
the inquiry in 20 nos. of sitting and the last such
sitting was held on 21.08.2015. As found from the
Proceeding file so produced in Court, on 21.08.2015,
the Inquiry Officer after examining the last witness
examined on behalf of the Management, closed the
inquiry and submitted the report on 05.05.2016.
7.3. As further found, prior to submission of the
inquiry report, Petitioner though made a grievance
vide letter dtd.18.03.2016 under Annexure-12 in
order to allow him to give his evidence, but the same
was not acceded to by the Enquiry Officer, so
available under Annexure-13. It is found that basing
on the inquiry report so submitted under Annexure-
6, Opp. party No.2 being the Disciplinary Authority,
passed the order of dismissal vide order
dtd.10.06.2016 under Annexure-8. Appeal filed by
the Petitioner was also rejected by Opp. party No.3
vide his order dtd.12.12.2016 under Annexure-10.
7.4. However, it is found that the Appellate authority
while rejecting the appeal, has taken a stand that he
Page 16 of 19
// 17 //
has gone through the charge-sheet and the reply
made by the Petitioner to the charge-sheet, even
though no such reply was ever made by the
Petitioner. Therefore, it is the view of this Court that
the Appellate Authority without proper appreciation,
rejected the Appeal vide order dtd.12.12.2016 under
Annexure-10.
7.5. Not only that, since Petitioner was never
provided with the documents even though the
charges were serious in nature and the Inquiry
Officer also closed the inquiry after examination of
the witnesses on behalf of the Management on
21.08.2015, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner
was seriously prejudiced because of non-supply of
the documents and so also conclusion of the Inquiry
after examination of the witnesses on behalf of the
Management on 21.08.2015.
7.6. In view of such illegalities and irregularities with
regard to conduct of the proceeding, this Court is
also of the view that order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority by imposing the punishment of dismissal,
Page 17 of 19
// 18 //
so passed vide order dtd.10.06.2016 under
Annexure-8, is not legal and justified.
7.7. In view of the aforesaid analysis and placing
reliance on the decisions so cited supra, this Court
while quashing the order of dismissal so passed by
Opp. Party No.2 on 10.06.2016 under Annexure-8
and order passed by the Appellate authority-Opp.
Party No.3 vide his order dtd.12.12.2016 under
Annexure-10, remits the matter to the Disciplinary
Authority for disposal of the proceeding from the
stage of supply of the documents.
7.8. Since it is contended that Petitioner has retired
just after 2 weeks of the initiation of the proceeding
on 31.10.2013, this Court directs Opp. party No.2 to
provide the documents so prayed for by the
Petitioner under Annexure-2 series, as expeditiously
as possible, preferably within a period of 8(eight)
weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On such
receipt of the documents, Petitioner be allowed 6(six)
weeks time to file his reply. On such receipt of the
reply, Opp.party No.2 is directed to dispose of the
Page 18 of 19
// 19 //
proceeding in terms of 2010 Regulation and by giving
due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.
7.9. If the Inquiry Officer who has submitted the
report under Annexure-6 is no more there, Opp.
party No.2 is free to appoint a fresh Inquiry Officer to
conduct the inquiry. Opp. Party No.2 is directed to
conclude the proceeding in all respect, as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period
of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of the reply
to the charges by the Petitioner. Petitioner however
is directed to cooperate for such disposal of the
proceeding within the aforesaid time period.
8. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
th
Dated the 8 October, 2026 /Sangita
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SANGITA PATRA
Reason: authenticaitoin of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Date: 16-Oct-2026 16:07:11
Page 19 of 19