Disciplinary appeals require a reasoned decision after affording the employee an opportunity of hearing.

The petitioner, a Bank employee since 1982, was suspended in July 2015 and charged in March 2016 with misconduct relating to allegedly irregular and impersonated loans, including failures to verify borrowers and alleged financial loss to the Bank.

Following a joint enquiry involving the petitioner and two other officers, the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty.

The Disciplinary Authority imposed removal from service and directed recovery of ₹12,00,089 on 29 April 2017.

The petitioner maintained that he had submitted a representation against the enquiry report on 24 April 2017; although the penalty order referred to a representation, the Bank’s counter-affidavit asserted that none had been filed.

The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal without reasons or an opportunity of hearing.

The petitioner also relied on a lesser penalty imposed on a co-delinquent employee.

Whether the Appellate Authority’s dismissal of the appeal was sustainable when it gave no reasons and the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing.

Whether the petitioner’s representation against the enquiry report had been considered by the Disciplinary Authority, given the conflicting accounts in its penalty order and the Bank’s counter-affidavit.

Whether the treatment of a co-delinquent employee with a lesser penalty was relevant to the petitioner’s appeal.

The proceeding was governed by Regulations 16–18 and 20 of the Orissa Grameen Bank Officers’ and Employees’ Service Regulations, 2010, with misconduct punishable under Regulation 39.

Regulation 45 provides for continuation of disciplinary proceedings after superannuation in specified circumstances and addresses the withholding of retirement benefits pending final orders.

The Court applied the principles of procedural fairness and reasoned decision-making: an appellate authority deciding a disciplinary appeal must afford the employee an opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned order.

The penalty order stated that the petitioner’s representation had been considered, while the Bank’s counter-affidavit claimed that no representation had been filed.

In light of that contradiction, the Court concluded that the representation had not in fact been considered by the Disciplinary Authority.

It also found that the Appellate Authority had rejected the appeal without reasons and without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, making the appellate decision procedurally deficient.

The Court directed the Appellate Authority, on reconsideration, to take into account the lesser penalty imposed on a co-delinquent employee.

It directed that the appeal be reconsidered preferably within three months and that the co-delinquent employee’s lesser penalty be taken into account.

The writ petition was disposed of; the Court did not itself set aside the Disciplinary Authority’s penalty order, leaving the matter for fresh appellate consideration.