The Orissa High Court invoked the words of poet Khalil Gibran on the dignity of work and dismissed a former bank officer's appeal against her removal for unauthorized absence, underscoring the duty to comply with transfer orders and the narrow scope for judicial review in disciplinary matters.
Gibran's Words in Court
Opening proceedings with the Lebanese-American poet's lines — “You work that you may keep pace with the earth and the soul of the earth… And if you cannot work with love but only with distaste, it is better that you should leave your work…” — a division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Chittaranjan Dash emphasized that employees in public service are expected to comply with transfer orders, warning that defiance would disrupt banking operations.
Case Background
The appellant joined a nationalised bank as a junior manager in 2011. She served in Bhubaneswar throughout her career before being transferred to Godhra, Gujarat, in June 2019. However, she did not report for duty at her new posting and remained absent for a long period, leading to disciplinary proceedings and eventual removal. A single judge had earlier rejected her plea against termination in September 2024.
Challenging the order, the woman argued she was compelled to stay back to care for her aged and ailing parents. She also alleged that the inquiry was rushed and violated principles of natural justice, and that removal was a disproportionate penalty given that the job was her only livelihood.
Court's Observations
The High Court found no merit in these claims. In the April 21 judgment, the bench noted that the inquiry was conducted with her participation and recorded that “merely saying that opportunity was not given would not suffice in the absence of demonstrable prejudice.”
In a sharp observation, the judges said the plea of violation of principles of natural justice cannot be chanted like a Vedic mantra. “It does not demonstrate substance, but generates senseless sound,” the court said.
The bench further pointed to the omission of key facts: that she has a brother and sister who could have assisted in caring for their parents. This omission, the High Court held, amounted to suppression of material facts, weakening her case.
Dismissal of Appeal
Finding no exceptional circumstance warranting interference, the bench concluded the appeal was “devoid of merit” and dismissed it. It added that employees in public service are expected to join the places to which they are transferred in due course. “It hardly needs to be stated as to what all difficulties the public service of banking would suffer when employees defy transfer orders with intent to cling on to the same place,” the court observed.
