The Orissa High Court has dismissed a writ appeal filed by a former bank officer challenging her removal from service for unauthorized absence, blending literary wisdom with service law principles. A Division Bench of Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice Chittaranjan Dash, in a judgment delivered on April 21, emphasized the importance of discipline in all-India banking services and the limited scope of judicial interference in disciplinary matters.
Literary Reference Sets the Tone
The Bench opened its judgment with a quote from Lebanese-American poet Khalil Gibran: "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…" This set the philosophical backdrop for the court's observations on the employee's duty and conduct.
Factual Background
The appellant, an officer of a nationalized bank, was appointed as a Junior Manager in 2011. She served in Bhubaneswar until June 2019, when she was transferred to Godhra. She failed to report to the new posting and remained absent for an extended period, leading to disciplinary proceedings and her eventual removal from service. A Single Judge had previously rejected her plea in September 2024.
Arguments and Rebuttals
Challenging the Single Judge's order, the officer argued that she was compelled to stay back to care for her aged and ailing parents. She also alleged that the inquiry was conducted hastily and violated principles of natural justice, and that removal was a disproportionate penalty given that the job was her only source of livelihood. The High Court found no merit in these claims.
Natural Justice Plea Rejected
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 added: "The plea of violation of principles of natural justice cannot be chanted like vedic mantra. It does not demonstrate substance but generates senseless sound."
Suppression of Material Facts
On her personal grounds, the Bench pointed to non-disclosure of key facts, including the existence of siblings who could assist in caring for their parents. This omission, it held, amounted to suppression of material facts, weakening her case.
Proportionality and Discipline
Addressing the proportionality of the punishment, the Bench said employees in public service are expected to comply with transfer orders, warning that defiance would disrupt banking operations. It reiterated that once misconduct is established through a fair inquiry, the choice of punishment lies primarily with the employer.
The Bench further underlined: "Ordinarily, the employees in public service like the one in this case 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."
Conclusion
Finding no exceptional circumstance warranting interference, the Bench concluded the appeal was "devoid of merit" and dismissed it. The judgment reinforces the principle that discipline in public service, particularly in banking, is paramount and that courts will not lightly interfere with disciplinary actions taken after a fair inquiry.
