IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.5424 of 2003 CNR No.ODHC010023082003 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Hemanta Kumar Pattanaik …. Petitioner -versus- Board of Directors, Cuttack Gramin Bank and Another …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. D. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. G.R. Mohapatra, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. M.K. Mishra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S. Senapati, Advocate for the Bank PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing:19.08.2026 and Date of Judgment:19.08.2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. Heard Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. G.R. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M.K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. S. Senapati, learned counsel for the Bank. 2. Pursuant to order dated 04.08.2026, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Opp. Party-Bank fairly contended that in the proceeding initiated by the CBI, petitioner has not been charge-sheeted. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “In these circumstances it is humbly prayed that a Rule NISI may be Issued to the 0pp. Parties calling upon them to show cause as to why the writ application shall not be allowed, and If the 0pp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, then the rule may be made absolute and on calling for records from the Opp. Parties and on hearing the counsel for the parties, this Hon'ble court may be pleased to:- a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order of dismissal of the petitioner under Annexure-2G, and the appellate order under Annexure-28,and b) Issue appropriate writ/direction to the 0pp. Parties to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages and treat the period of suspension as duty with all consequential service benefits, and/or c) issue any other appropriate writ, direction or order as is deemed proper.” 4. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide charge-sheet dated 19.08.2002 under Annexure-10, petitioner was imposed with the punishment of dismissal vide order dated 22.04.2003 under Annexure-26 of the Opp. Party No.2. It is contended that appeal preferred by the petitioner against such order of dismissal before the Appellate Authority-Opp. Party No.1 was also rejected vide order dated 23.07.2003 under Annexure-28. 4.1. While assailing the order of punishment so imposed under Annexure-26 and confirmed vide order under Annexure-28, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the proceeding in question was initiated with the following charges:- “Sri H.K.Pattanalk, (P.F.M. No. OR/1547/17) while functioning as Senior Manager, Planning & Development Deptt. was made a member of the Bank's Investment Committee vide Order No. SCTT|HO|203|1998-1999 dated 16,01.1999. During his tenure, he had indulged in several acts of omission and commission while discharging his duties:- 1. Shri H.K. Pattanaik, as a member of the Investment" Committee had hot ensured opening of the CSGL a/c of the bank for Investment of funds as per RBI guidelines; 2. Shri H.K. Pattanalk, as a member of the Investment Committee had recommended for investment of Rs.10 crores in (12.60% GOI 2018) Govt. securities through M/s. EPCOT securities Ltd. in Its first meeting dated 20.09.2001 ' 3. In the 2nd meeting on 04.10.2001, Shri Pattanalk had recommended for Investment of Rs.5 crores in Govt. securities through M/s Home trade Ltd; But, In both the cases, Shri Pattanaik being a member of the Investment Committee has not verified the credentials of the brokers before recommending for investment of such huge funds; 4. In the Investment Committee, meeting held on 22.12.2001, Mr. Pattanaik had recommended for switch over from long term 12.60% GOI securities against RBI guidelines. Shri Pattanaik in the Investment Committee meeting dated 08.01.2002 recommended for Investment of Rs.4 crores for the purchase of 12.69% GOI 2002 and selling the same at a later date i.e. 10.01.2002 by acceptance of the post dated cheque for Rs.4,21,15,000/- of 10.04.2002 from M/s. Home Trade Ltd. along with additional deal confirmation from UTI Bank; Though, the Senior Manager, (Accounts) apprised the Investment Committee on 08.01.2002 that a sum of Rs.5 crores out of Long Term Securities has been converted to Short term. 13.80% GOI securities, still Shri Pattanaik; being the member of the Committee neither enquired into the physical delivery of securities nor advised to ensure follow up for physical delivery of the scripts. 5. On 09.04.2002, the Investment Committee had recommended for Investment of Rs.10.81 crores i.e. (Rs.4,176 lacs+Rs.6,634 lacs) on Govt. securities i.e. 13.82% GOI 2002 with M/s Home Trade Ltd. having an additional deal confirmation of UTI Bank. Shri Pattanaik, being the member of the Committee never tried to Know about the receipt of post-dated cheque and physical delivery of earlier scripts from M/s Home Trade Ltd. with additional deal confirmation from UTI Bank'; Thus, Shri Pattanaik had failed to discharge his duties with utmost sincerity, honesty and faithfully in such important financial matter; 6. As a member of the Investment Committee, Shri Pattanaik had recommended for Buy-back transaction of Govt. securities without calling for relevant papers and examining the rule which prohibit buy back deals. Hence. Shri Pattanaik tailed to protect the Bank's interest. 7. Shri Pattanaik as a member of the ‘Investment Committee’ had acted in a manner which is violative of the Investment Policy of the Bank, resulted in huge financial loss to the Bank. 8. Shri Pattanaik, as a member of the Investment Committee had consented for sale of Rs.10 crores, 12.60% GOI 2018 securities at a price of not less than Rs.13 crores in the meeting held on 09.01.2002 even though the Committee is the only recommending authority. Hence, Shri Pattanaik, as a member of the Committee did not perform his duty diligently. The above acts of Shri Pattanaik constitute a gross misconduct on his part and tarnished the image of the Bank.” 4.2. It is contended that the issue with regard to investment of a sum of Rs.10,81,00,000/- so taken by the Investment Committee, petitioner was only a member of the Committee, the Chairman being an officer of the Sponsoring UCO Bank. But the proceeding was initiated against the petitioner with the aforesaid charges vide charge-sheet dated 19.08.2002. Similar proceeding was also initiated against the Chairman of the Committee who happens to be an officer of the UCO Bank which was the sponsoring Bank of the Opp. Party-Bank at the relevant point of time. 4.3. It is contended that order of punishment passed against the Chairman of the Committee in the proceeding initiated by the authorities of UCO Bank in demoting him to the lower rank, was assailed before this Court in W.P.(C) No.972 of 2007 (Netrananda Pattnaik Vs. UCO Bank and Others). It is contended that this Court vide its judgment dated 06.01.2012, while setting aside the order of punishment, held the petitioner therein to have continued in the Scale-III post which he was occupying at the time of imposition of the punishment. 4.4. Assailing the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition, UCO Bank and Others moved Hon’ble Apex Court by filing Civil Appeal No.1451 of 2015. Hon’ble Apex Court disposed of the Appeal vide its order dated 03.02.2015 by upholding the order passed by this Court. Hon’ble Apex Court however only clarified to the following extent:- “He shall continue to be treated as holding the Scale- III post which he was occupying at the time of the imposition of the punishment, but he will not be entitled to get any financial benefits for the said period, but the said period shall be computed towards service for all purpose.” 4.5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that since the Chairman of the Committee who was also involved with regard to the decision making process for investment of the aforesaid amount by the Opp. Party-Bank, imposed with the punishment of reduction in rank by the authorities of UCO Bank, was interfered with by this Court, so confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court with the clarification as indicated hereinabove, petitioner being similarly situated, order of dismissal passed against him by the Disciplinary Authority vide order under Annexure-26, confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide his order under Annexure-28 needs interference of this Court on the ground of parity. 4.6. It is contended that by the time the petitioner was dismissed from his services vide order dated 22.04.2003 under Annexure-26, petitioner had already rendered services for around 26 years. However, because of nature of punishment imposed, petitioner was deprived to get any service benefit. It is however contended that had the petitioner not being imposed with the aforesaid punishment, petitioner would have continued in his services till attaining the age of superannuation, which fell due on March, 2010. 4.7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner accordingly contended that since the Chairman of the Committee who was involved in the decision making process with regard to the investment in question, punishment imposed by the authorities of UCO Bank has been interfered with by this Court and upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court, petitioner being similarly situated, on the ground of parity, punishment of the order of dismissal requires interference of this Court. 4.8. It is further contended that petitioner will have no grievance if the period from the date of dismissal till petitioner attains the age of superannuation, will be treated as qualifying service on notional basis and petitioner will be extended with all retiral benefits as due and admissible with quashing of the order of punishment of dismissal so passed by Opp. Party No.2 in his order dtd.22.04.2003 under Annexure- 26, further upheld by the appellate authority, Opp. Party No.1 in his order dtd.23.07.2003 under Annexure-28. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Opp. Party-Bank on the other hand contended that even though with regard to the investment of the amount in question petitioner as well as the Chairman of the UCO Bank faced the proceeding, but in the proceeding so initiated against the petitioner under Annexure-10, definite charges were framed against the petitioner, which was not the case in the case of the Chairman of the Committee. 5.1. It is also contended that in the enquiry so conducted, the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges on all count in his report under Annexure-13. The Disciplinary Authority-Opp. Party No.2 after following due procedure of law and by giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner all through, imposed the punishment of dismissal vide order dated 22.04.2003 under Annexure-26. Appeal filed by the petitioner against such order was also rejected by the Appellate Authority-O.P. No.1 vide his order dated 23.07.2003 under Annexure-28. 5.2. It is contended that since in the proceeding against the petitioner there were definite charges and taking into account the nature of charges and on being found guilty of the charges by the Enquiry Officer, petitioner has been imposed with the punishment of dismissal, it cannot be held that petitioner is similarly situated as like the Chairman of the Committee. 5.3. It is also contended that Chairman of the Committee was imposed with the punishment of reduction in Rank by the authorities of UCO Bank. It is however not disputed that such order of demotion was interfered with by this Court in its order dated 06.01.2012 in W.P.(C) No.972 of 2007, so upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court with certain clarifications. It is also not disputed by the learned Senior Counsel with regard to stand taken by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that petitioner has not been charge-sheeted in the CBI Proceeding, which was initiated with regard to the irregularities on the issue of investment in question. 5.4. However, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bank contended that since Petitioner faced the proceeding with definite charges, he cannot be equated with the Chairman of the Committee who happens to be an officer of the UCO Bank. 5.5. It is accordingly contended that no interference is called for with regard to the order of punishment imposed against the petitioner vide order under Annexure-26, so upheld by the Appellate Authority under Annexure-28. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioner while working as a Senior Manager under the Opp. Party-Bank, the proceeding in question was initiated against him vide charge- sheet dated 19.08.2002 under Annexure-10. It is not disputed that in the said proceeding, petitioner was held guilty of the charges by the Enquiry Officer in his report under Annexure-13. It is not disputed that basing on such report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and by following due procedure of law, petitioner was imposed with the punishment of dismissal by Opp. Party No.2 vide his order dated 22.04.2003 under Annexure-26. The said order was also upheld by the Appellate Authority-Opp. Party No.1 in his order dated 23.03.2007 under Annexure- 28. 6.1. However, it is found and which is not disputed with regard to the irregularities committed by the Committee regarding investment of the amount in question, the Chairman of the Committee who happens to be an officer of the UCO Bank was also proceeded with and imposed with the punishment of demotion to a lower rank. However, such order of punishment imposed on the Chairman of the Committee was interfered with by this Court in its order dated 06.01.2012 in W.P.(C) No.972 of 2007. 6.2. Even though the authorities of UCO Bank assailed the order so passed in W.P.(C) No.972 of 2007 before the Apex Court by filing Civil Appeal No.1451 of 2015, but the appeal was also dismissed with certain clarification so indicated in order dated 03.02.2015. 6.3. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, it is the view of this Court that since petitioner was a member of the Committee which took the decision with regard to the investment of the amount and the Chairman of the Committee even though was an officer of UCO Bank, but punishment imposed on him was interfered with by this Court, so upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court with certain clarifications. 6.4. This Court taking into account the fact that, petitioner was only a member of the committee and has not been charge-sheeted in the CBI Proceeding, is of the view that order of punishment passed under Annexure-26, upheld vide order under Annexure-28 requires interference of this Court as petitioner stands in a better footing than that of the Chairman of the Committee. 6.5. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the order of punishment so imposed against the petitioner by Opp. Party No.2 in his order dated 22.04.2003 under Annexure-26, upheld by the Appellate Authority-Opp. Party No.1 in his order dated 23.07.2003 under Annexure-28. 6.6. While quashing both the orders and considering the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2010, this Court directs the Opp. Party-Bank to regularise the period from the date of dismissal till the date of superannuation, on notional basis. Petitioner will not be entitled to claim any financial benefit for the said period. 6.7. After such regularisation of the period on notional basis, retiral benefits as due and admissible be released in favour of the petitioner. However, petitioner will not be entitled to claim any interest for such delayed payment of the retiral benefits from the Opp. Party-Bank. Opp. Party-Bank is directed to release the retiral benefits as due and admissible as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 4(four) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 19th August, 2026/Basudev