IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.13339 of 2006 Laxmidhar Panda …. Petitioner Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, Senior Advocate -Versus- Kalinga Gramya Bank & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Manoj Mishra, Senior Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK DATE OF HEARING: 05.03.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:19.06.2026 1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned decision of the Disciplinary Authority by order dated 27th March, 2003 as at Annexure-12 and also the order of the Appellate Authority vide Annexure-14 on the grounds inter alia that the order of dismissal from service with immediate effect is arbitrary and illegal, hence, liable to be interfered with and set aside with a direction towards his reinstatement with all consequential benefits admissible as per the rules declaring the action of the opposite parties in conducting the enquiry as perfunctory and in violation of the Regulation and Guidelines issued by the NABARD. 2. As per the facts pleaded on record, the petitioner entered into service as a Clerk on 6th November, 1978 and subsequently promoted to the rank of Field AFR Supervisor/Officer, a Scale-I post in the Bank. In the year 2002, according to the petitioner, the Cuttack Gramin Bank Officers Association and Karmachari Sangha under the banner of Joint Coordination Committee had an agitational programme to settle genuine grievances of its employees/officers and because of his participation therein, a chargesheet was drawn up with allegations that without obeying the order, he was a part of such programme and forced others to participate and committed such other acts despite an order of a Magistrate under Section 144(2) Cr.P.C. and for having violated Regulations 17,19, 22 and 31 of the Cuttack Gramin Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulation, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation’) and with an enquiry held, the proceeding was dropped finally since he himself regretted the action but was warned not to repeat it in future or else some action shall follow including his dismissal from service. 2.1. That the Chairman-cum-Disciplinary Authority by office order dated 27th March, 2003 again decided to hold an enquiry under Regulation 38 of the Regulation, however, with statement of allegations, such as, delayed inspection of two Branches of the Bank; unauthorized absence from 14th February, 2003 without prior sanction and having not responded to the call of the Bank to join back; remained absent during crucial annual closing; and for creation of NPA while handling gold loan accounts amounting to Rs.64,000/- besides unapplied interest. A copy of the chargesheet dated 27th March, 2003 was served on the petitioner as per Annexure-1 on 31st March, 2003, whereafter, he requested the Disciplinary Authority by letter dated 5th April, 2003 i.e. Annexure-2 to supply him the documents basing on which the allegations and charges have been levelled and framed and to allow 15 days’ time to submit a written statement of defence. But barely after two days from then, by notification dated 7th April, 2003 at Annexure-3, it was observed by the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner did not submit any reply and proceeded to conduct the enquiry. It is pleaded that while issuing the chargesheet, the Disciplinary Authority could not have held the enquiry before the show cause was received from the petitioner, hence, such decision is not legally tenable. 2.2. It has been claimed by the petitioner that he was on medical leave from 10th April, 2003 to 7th May, 2003 since having suffered Jaundice referring to the documents as at Annexure-4 series and not only that, the Branch Manager of Chatua Branch of the Bank, where he was posted at the relevant point of time, by office letter dated 28th April, 2003 i.e. Annexure-5 series had intimated the Enquiry Officer about his medical leave during the aforesaid period and only thereafter, upon his joining on 8th May, 2003, he was handed over the office letters dated 17th April, 2003, 22nd April, 2003, 30th April, 2003 and 5th May, 2003 and then only knew about the appointment of an Enquiry Officer and previous dates of enquiry and on the very next date i.e. 8th May, 2003, was relieved from the Branch, whereafter, requested for supply of the documents by letter dated 8th May, 2003 i.e. Annexure-6 to respond to the charges framed which was rejected on the premise that he had attended the enquiry on the date fixed i.e. 8th May, 2003 and received a copy of the proceeding and hence, was aware of the enquiry. 2.3. Furthermore, the Enquiry Officer did not allow reasonable time for the petitioner for submitting the defence and to engage his Defence Representative and overruled the same with an observation that sufficient time was allowed to him and for the fact that such engagement is not required since no question of law is involved. In support of the above claim, a copy of the proceeding dated 8th May, 2003 as at Annexure-7 is referred to. On 9th May, 2003. Since the request from the side of the petitioner was not heeded to and there was pressure to admit the charges framed, a representation as per Annexure-8 was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority to change the Enquiry Officer as fair enquiry was not expected from him. But, in the meantime, the Enquiry Officer proceeded and concluded the enquiry on 12th May, 2003 directing the petitioner to submit a written note on or before 15th May, 2003 and thereafter, sent the report to the Disciplinary Authority. According to the petitioner, due to the aforesaid action, it was clear that the opposite parties never had any intention to allow him to defend the proceeding properly and the Enquiry Officer, with the findings, declared the charges to have been proved without duly conducting the enquiry in the manner it is contemplated under the Regulation and submitted the enquiry report as at Annexure-10, inasmuch as, he was not provided a reasonable opportunity of hearing to prove his innocence. 2.5. On 9th June, 2003, the petitioner represented the Chairman-cum-Disciplinary Authority stating therein that no reasonable opportunity was provided to him to defend and no documents were even supplied to him and even engagement of a Defence Representative was denied concluding the enquiry hurriedly. By describing the infirmities in the entire enquiry, the petitioner submitted a representation as per Annexure-11 to the Disciplinary Authority to cause a fresh enquiry by appointing someone else in place of the Enquiry Officer, but it was not responded, instead, the Senior Manager, Personnel Administration Department by office order dated 21st June, 2003 at Annexure-12 communicated to him about the final order of the Authority, who was of the view that sufficient opportunity was provided. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of Directors in terms of Regulation 47 of the Regulation. A copy of the appeal memorandum is at Annexure-13 but the Appellate Authority by order dated 21st November, 2003 confirmed his dismissal from service by the impugned order as at Annexure-14 3. Perused the counter affidavit of the opposite parties dated 23rd November, 2011 and also rejoinder of the petitioner to the same and the respective pleadings therein. Page 6 of 35 4. Heard Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the opposite parties. 5. According to Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate, the decisions of the authorities concerned on dismissal of the petitioner from service suffer from the following illegalities/infirmities, such as, (i) charges are not specific; (ii) non-supply of relied documents before commencement of the enquiry; (iii) also non-supply of the relevant documents despite request made: (iv) arbitrary conduct of the Enquiry Officer; (v) denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to engage a defence representatives during enquiry; (vi) charges are not proved as no Management witness was examined; (vii) enquiry was conducted hurriedly and in a mechanical manner: (viii) request for change of Enquiry Officer was ignored; (ix) non-application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority; (x) mechanical dismissal of appeal by the Appellate Authority: (xi) non-consideration of reply by the Disciplinary Authority; (xii) no second show cause notice issued for the petitioner to respond; (xiii) consideration of past service record which was no part of the Article of Charge; (xiv) punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the charges levelled; and (xv) no reasonable opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner to defend the action. 6. On the contrary, Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite parties would submit that fair amount of opportunity to reply and respond was allowed to the petitioner during the enquiry which was finally concluded by imposing a major penalty by the Disciplinary Authority and it has been rightly upheld in appeal. It is contended that the Article of Charges was issued to the petitioner under Regulation 38 of the Regulation for him to submit a statement of defence within seven days and since no reply was received, the Disciplinary Authority appointed the Enquiry Officer on 7th April, 2003, whereafter, every attempt was made to serve a notice on him, but he avoided receiving the same. It is contended that the petitioner availed leave without intimation to the Disciplinary Authority which is apparent on the face of record, but he attended the enquiry and it is not that the Enquiry Officer denied engagement of a Defence Representative for him, a claim which is incorrect and not only that, the documents relied on by the Management were supplied during the enquiry. It is claimed that the petitioner attended the enquiry on 9th May, 2003, but did not sign the proceeding, whereafter, the next date was fixed to 12th May, 2003, about which, he was well aware and furthermore, intimation was sent to him to attend the enquiry on the said date, but due to his non-participation, the enquiry report was submitted on 21st May, 2003. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate further submits that a copy of the report was sent to the petitioner on 22nd May, 2003 and in response to the same, a reply was received and therefore, the claim that no opportunity was provided to defend the disciplinary proceeding is totally incorrect and contrary to the record and at last, the Disciplinary Authority in agreement with the findings of the enquiry directed his dismissal from service which commensurate to the charges framed and it was duly communicated on 21st June, 2003 vide Annexure-12 and besides that, the Appellate Authority confirmed the penalty imposed dismissing the appeal on 21st November, 2003 rejecting the grounds pleaded therein by him. The contention of Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate is that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been substantiated and upheld by the Appellate Authority. The further contention is that each and every aspect of the enquiry was properly attended to and addressed by the Enquiry Officer which finally culminated in the dismissal order confirmed in appeal. 7. The departmental action was initiated on the statement of allegations and Article of Charge as per Annexure-1. According to the petitioner, a written statement of defence could not be filed since a request to the Disciplinary Authority to supply the documents relied on to substantiate the charges framed were not supplied to him. Referring to Annexure-2, it is contended that the petitioner addressed it to the Disciplinary Authority for supply of the documents with the assurance to submit a written statement of defence within 15 days of the date of receipt of the same. Whether there was any such demand for documents as per Annexure-1 and thereafter, the enquiry has been held with reasonable opportunity of hearing provided to the petitioner and as to if the major penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the petitioner is proportionate to the charges levelled is a matter to be considered with reference to the record. 8. After having briefly stated facts of the case and defence with the contentions advanced from both the sides, the primary grounds upon which the order of dismissal from service of the petitioner have been questioned are to the following effect, such as, (i) the charges levelled are vague and not specific; (ii) the Memorandum of Charge did not indicate as to what were the documents relied upon to prove the statement of the allegations put forth against the petitioner; (iii) non-supply of documents despite specific request by the petitioner before commencement of the enquiry; (iv) arbitrary conduct of the Inquiring Officer during such enquiry; (v) denial of appointment of a Defence Representative to defend the petitioner; (vi) charges were not proved with the examination of any witness from the side of the Management; (vii) enquiry was conducted in a hurry and mechanical manner; (viii) request for change of Enquiry Officer with a request to the Disciplinary Authority in that regard was ignored; (ix) non-application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority upon receiving the enquiry report and recommendation; (x) the dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority without independently examining the record and passing a reasoned order while dealing with the plea of the petitioner; (xi) non-consideration of reply of the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority; (xii) discrimination in not providing the petitioner a second show cause notice before imposing the punishment; (xiii) consideration of past service record, which was not a part of the Article of Charge; (xiv) punishment with dismissal from the service of the petitioner is disproportionate; and (xv) no reasonable opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner to defend the inquiry. In respect of some of the grounds stated hereinabove, reply has been received from the opposite parties denying all the allegations levelled against the Enquiry Officer and also in the conducting of enquiry; with respect to decision of the Disciplinary Authority; and in dismissing the appeal by the authority concerned. 9. Both sides cited the case laws in support of and against the contentions put forth as on the one hand, the petitioner pleaded that the entire exercise of enquiry is vitiated having not been conducted in terms of the provisions of the Regulation, whereas, on the other hand, the opposite parties claimed that the enquiry was held as per the provisions contemplated therein and reasonable opportunity of hearing was allowed to the petitioner to defend the same and ultimately followed by his order of dismissal from service and as such, there has been no illegality committed. 10. This Court is inclined to consider the materials on record in juxtaposition to the rival contentions of the parties. According to Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, the charges levelled against the delinquent are at Annexure-1 and to that, a request was made to the Disciplinary Authority to supply him the relevant documents referable to the allegations followed by issuing the Memorandum of Charge, but such request dated 5th April, 2003 was not entertained. A copy of the said letter addressed to the Chairman and Disciplinary Authority, Cuttack, Gramya Bank is at Annexure-2. It has been claimed that the petitioner again on 3rd May, 2003 sent a letter to Disciplinary Authority through Fax mentioning therein about the letter dated 5th April, 2003. It is claimed that the Enquiry Officer received the letter on 3rd May, 2003 itself as made to reveal from Annexure-16. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate would further submit that only after two days i.e. on 7th April, 2003, the Disciplinary Authority directed to conduct the inquiry into the charges on the premise that no reply was received from the petitioner and accordingly, appointed the Enquiry Officer for the said purpose. 11. The claim is that the petitioner was on medical leave as he was suffering from Jaundice and joined the Chatua Branch on 8th May, 2003 and on the same day, he was handed over the letter dated 8th May, 2003 i.e. Annexure-6, wherefrom, appointment of an Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer on 7th April, 2003 was learned by him. The submission is that on 8th May, 2003 itself, the Presenting Officer submitted the list of documents and witnesses to be examined from the side of the Management, a copy of which was handed over to the petitioner under his acknowledgement as per Annexure-7. The petitioner claimed to have requested the Enquiry Officer to provide reasonable time for him to submit the name and consent of the Defence Representative, which was overruled so also made a request to the Disciplinary Authority on 9th May, 2003 to change the Enquiry Officer in the interest of justice as per Annexure-8, but on 12th May, 2003, the enquiry was concluded and by letter dated 13th May, 2003, he was directed to submit a written brief on or before 15th May, 2003 and the said letter was dispatched on 21st May, 2003 received by him on 2nd June, 2003 and hence, could not file the response and at last, it led to the submission of the enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority. The contention is that the enquiry was conducted hurriedly without reasonable time provided to the petitioner. However, Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the Bank submits that adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner, who was present at the time of enquiry held on 8th May, 2003 and 9th May, 2003 but did not turn up on 12th May, 2003 even though, he was aware of the date fixed and such default is deliberate and therefore, the plea on any such ground is totally baseless. 12. From the record, this Court finds that the petitioner was served with the documents and list of witnesses on 8th May, 2003 and the enquiry was fixed to 9th May, 2003 and finally on 12th May, 2003, but since no written defence was received, the enquiry was concluded on 12th May, 2003 itself. According to the Court, the petitioner having received the relevant documents on 8th May, 2003, at least fifteen days’ time should have been allowed for him to reply and submit the response. To expect a written defence to the Memorandum of Charge relying on the documents supplied to the petitioner shortly before i.e. on 8th May, 2003 is unreasonable. In fact, the relevant documents with all other details should have accompanied the Memorandum Charge for a reply from the petitioner. But the petitioner was on medical leave between 10th May, 2003 and 7th May, 2003, the fact, which is not denied by the Bank and therefore, as it is made to understand, the list of documents and witnesses to be examined from the side of the Management could only be served on him on 8th May, 2003 upon his appearance for the enquiry. In any case, on and after 8th May, 2003, the petitioner having received the relevant documents, he should have been provided reasonable time to respond. Merely for the absence of the petitioner on 12th May, 2003, the date fixed for the enquiry, it was not right and justified on the part of the Enquiry Officer to close the enquiry on the premise that no written reply was received. The enquiry was concluded on 12th May, 2003 and it was followed by a notice to the petitioner dated 13th May, 2003 with a request to him to submit the written brief on or before 15th May, 2003. According to the Court, it was too little time for the petitioner to respond to the enquiry that was concluded on 12th May, 2003. A letter dated 13th May, 2003 addressed to the petitioner was dispatched by Post demanding such reply. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate submits that the said letter was sought to be served personally on the petitioner. But no evidence is on record to show that there was any personal service about the intimation to the petitioner with a letter dated 13th May, 2003 itself. Quite interestingly, the said letter is shown to have been dispatched on 21st May, 2003 as clearly evident from Annexure-9 and received by the petitioner on 2nd June, 2003. In fact, the letter was dispatched with delay i.e. on 21st May, 2003, the fact which is also not denied by the Bank. Under the above circumstances, how could it be possible for the petitioner to submit a written reply on or before 15th May, 2003. Perhaps, absence of the petitioner on 12th May, 2003 prompted the Enquiry Officer to close the enquiry and to serve the letter dated 13th May, 2003 on the petitioner and when it could not be achieved, the same was dispatched on 21st May, 2003. But then the letter was received on 2nd June, 2003 again made to reveal from Annexure-9, hence, the petitioner did not have any such opportunity or occasion to reply to such letter dated 13th May, 2003 any time on or before 15th May, 2003. 13. The Court further finds that when no any response was received from the petitioner and on 21st May, 2003, the date on which the letter dated 13th May, 2003 was dispatched, the enquiry report was submitted. A copy of the said report is at Annexure-10. On a reading of the enquiry report, it is made to reveal that as many as eight documents were marked as exhibits on behalf of the Management but without examination of any of the official witnesses. Having regard to the facts narrated hereinabove, this Court reaches at a conclusion that the enquiry was conducted within a short time and concluded without waiting for a response from the petitioner, who did not have the occasion to submit a written brief, all the more when, intimation for a reply on or before 15th May, 2003 was received by him on 2nd June, 2003. In the considered view of the Court, the Enquiry Officer was in haste and without providing reasonable time for the petitioner to respond to the list of documents and witnesses purposed to be examined by the Management concluded the enquiry. Even though, the Bank has disputed having received the letter of the petitioner dated 5th April, 2003 requesting time to reply but for the rejoinder affidavit and the minutes of the 158th meeting dated 21st November, 2003 as at Annexuxre-18 of the Bank under Agenda No.16 therein, any such claim put forth and argument advanced shall have to be rejected. 14. One more argument is advanced by Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate to the effect that the petitioner did not demand any specific document as per Annexure-2. When a Memorandum of Charge is issued, it is quite natural for the petitioner to demand supply of the relevant documents. It was well within the knowledge of the Bank about the documents to be relied upon during enquiry to meet the charges framed against the petitioner, hence, on any such request received as per Annexure-2, at least, the relevant documents were to be supplied to him. Even if there have been no specific documents demanded by the petitioner, in the humble view of the Court, it was incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to supply the vital documents necessary to substantiate the charges framed against the petitioner for expecting a proper response from him. Of course, the lists of documents were received on 8th May, 2003 just before commencement of the enquiry. But the Disciplinary Authority ought to have furnished the documents relevant to the enquiry to prove the charges for a reply and response from the petitioner before proceeding to initiate the enquiry with the appointment of the Enquiry Officer and the officer to marshal the proceeding. 14.1. The decision in State of Tamil Nadu Vrs. Thiru K.V. Perumal and others (1996) 5 SCC 474 cited by Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate lays down the law that the duty of the authorities is only to supply relevant documents and not each and every document asked for by the delinquent. It does mean that the documents, which are not so relevant or not to be relied upon during enquiry, if not supplied to a delinquent, for such non-supply, the disciplinary action cannot be invalidated, but it is the bounden duty of the Authority concerned to supply the relevant documents as has been held therein. Referring to the above decision, the Disciplinary Authority cannot absolve itself of the responsibility of supplying the relevant documents to the petitioner during and in course of the departmental enquiry. Rather, the decision (supra) vindicates the plea of the petitioner and contention of Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate that it was for the Authority to supply the relevant documents while inviting a response and before commencement of the enquiry. Page 17 of 35 15. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate further refers to a decision in Union of India and others Vrs. G. Annadurai (2009) 13 SCC 469 to contend that reasonable opportunity was provided to the petitioner during enquiry. The contention is that immediately after receipt of the chargesheet and appointment of the Enquiry Officer on 7th April, 2003, the petitioner went on leave without intimating the Disciplinary Authority and he also avoided receiving any notice. The petitioner was on leave from 10th April, 2003 till 7th May, 2003 and it is alleged by the Bank that he availed such leave on medical ground immediately after the Enquiry Officer was appointed and it was purposeful to avoid receiving notice of the enquiry and that too without intimation given to the Disciplinary Authority. But no material is on record to show that the medical leave of the petitioner during the alleged period had no approval of the Disciplinary Authority. Nothing is on record either to show that the petitioner was sought to be served with a notice after 7th April, 2003 to which he intentionally avoided. Nonetheless, the petitioner participated in the enquiry commenced on 8th May, 2003 and as earlier stated, within a couple of days, the proceeding was concluded. In G. Annadurai (supra), an ex parte enquiry was held when the delinquent failed to participate therein despite sufficient opportunity being given to him by sending notices by Registered Post to his home address and not only that, the enquiry report was also sent and under such circumstances, the Apex Court held that the order of dismissal passed against him by the employer should not have been interfered with. According to the Court, the said decision is distinguishable on facts and hence, not applicable to the case at hand. It is not that the petitioner avoided the enquiry despite repeated notices issued to him. Rather, the Court finds that the petitioner was present on the first date of enquiry i.e. on 8th May, 2003 and also on 9th May, 2003 and said to have defaulted in appearance on 12th May, 2003 which led to the closure of enquiry with a letter dated 13th May, 2003 sent to him for a written reply. In two or three dates, the enquiry was concluded and the report was submitted on 21st May, 2003 even before the postal notice had been served/received by him. 15.1. For the facts stated above, notwithstanding the default of the petitioner on 12th May, 2003, it was for the Enquiry Officer to provide the petitioner a reasonable time to submit written brief, but it was directed to be complied with on or before 15th May, 2003. If the petitioner was absent on 12th May, 2003, according to the Court, the Enquiry Officer should have been a little more patient before concluding the proceeding and furthermore, when letter dated 13th May, 2003 was sent to the petitioner by Post and claimed to have been received by him on 2nd June, 2003. Against the aforesaid backdrop and having considered the fact that the enquiry was for a brief period and on the last date i.e. 12th May, 2003, the petitioner was absent for whatever reasons, this Court reiterates and is inclined to hold that there was no reasonable time allowed for him to reply and respond and the enquiry was concluded hastily. This Court is also inclined to hold that the decision in G. Annadurai (supra) is based on distinguishable facts, hence, is equally not applicable to the case of the petitioner. 16. Though a decision of the Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh and others Vrs. A. Venkata Raidu (2007) 1 SCC 338 is cited by Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner alleging vagueness in the charges framed, the same is distinguishable on facts, wherein, it has been held absolutely necessary to place on record, the details of the Government orders to be complied with in connection with deposit of funds in the cooperative/private Banks made by the delinquent therein and the same having been violated and it was not done, in that context, the charge was held to be vague, whereas, in the present case, the charges are clearly understood and it has provided the bare minimum details for the petitioner to reply and defend. 16.1. In fact, it is alleged that the allegations are vague. The written statement of allegations and Article of Charge is at Annexure-1 and the same are gone through. On a plain reading of Annexure-1, the Court finds that the Article of Charge framed is not ambiguous or unclear though not in great detail. The reason behind the enquiry is clearly evident from the statement of allegations served on the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority. The specific instances are mentioned therein, revealing the misconduct on the part of the petitioner which included unauthorized absence, especially during annual closing of March, 2003 thereby affecting the performance of the concerned Branch where he was posted at that time and about the NPA created in respect of gold loan accounts which is one of the charges framed against him. Though the minute details with reference to documents are not disclosed in the statement of allegations and also in the Article of Charge, it would not be correct to allege that the charges are in any way to be vague. It is not that general allegations have been made alleging negligence of the petitioner while discharging duty at the Branch. The delay in inspection and submission of reports within the time prescribed and unauthorized absence besides not responding to the intimation via Telegram and letter dated 6th February, 2003 by the Area Manager, Jagatsinghpur to join in duty and he being accountable for creation of NPA to be precisely stated influenced the Disciplinary Authority to initiate the enquiry and therefore, to allege that Annexure-1 is vague is totally misplaced. 17. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner would submit that the enquiry was arbitrarily conducted by the Enquiry Officer since he, at every stage of the proceeding, overruled the request made by the petitioner even denying supply of the relevant documents and also in not allowing engagement of a Defence Representative. It is alleged that though the list of documents was supplied to the petitioner, but not the actual copies of the same and such denial was coupled with rejecting the request to engage a representative clearly proved the conduct of the Enquiry Officer. The supply of the relevant documents by the Disciplinary Authority and denial of the same and prejudice caused to the petitioner have already been discussed hereinbefore. To engage a Defence Representative in a domestic enquiry depends on the nature of such enquiry and discretion exercisable in that regard. As a matter of right, a delinquent cannot demand engagement of a representative. If the enquiry involves complex questions based on facts and law, engagement of a Defence Representative may be considered. But in so far as, the allegations against the petitioner are concerned, it is about negligence in holding inspections and submission of reports besides unauthorized absence from duty and creation of NPA for the gold loans, which, in the considered view of the Court, would have been defended by the petitioner himself being a Senior Official even without engagement of a Defence Representative and therefore, any such request even though overruled during enquiry cannot be alleged as arbitrary exercise of power by the Enquiry Officer. 17.1. 17.1. Nothing is demonstrated on record from the side of the petitioner to show that the Enquiry Officer was in any way biased or conducted himself with malafide. Of course, the petitioner made a request to the Disciplinary Authority to charge the Enquiry Officer and it received no response. According to the Court, in absence of any incriminating material on record, no bad intention can be attributed to the Enquiry Officer on any such ground. Merely for not allowing the petitioner to engage a Defence Representative and no response of the Disciplinary Authority to change the Enquiry Officer could possibly be a ground to challenge the enquiry. A rejection of the request of the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer by itself cannot be considered to be an act of arbitrariness. Unless it is clearly demonstrated by a delinquent regarding the arbitrary conduct of the Enquiry Officer, any such challenge to the enquiry alleging bias by him cannot be entertained. Such plea of the petitioner and contention of Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate attributing arbitrary conduct to the Enquiry Officer is, therefore, liable to be rejected for the reason stated hereinabove. 18. The enquiry was concluded with a report submitted to the Disciplinary Authority and curiously enough, no witness from the side of the Management was examined except the documents marked as exhibits. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate contends that in absence of examination of any of the witnesses initially proposed, the exhibits remained unproven and therefore, the charges cannot be said to have been established in accordance with law. On the contrary, Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the Bank submits that even though the witnesses were not examined, apparently for the reason that the petitioner failed to turn up, on any such ground, the enquiry report cannot be questioned. It is further submitted that the documents exhibited proved and established the guilt of the petitioner, inasmuch as, all the charges were found substantiated. According to the Court, even though the petitioner was absent when evidence was received, it was for the Management to lead oral and documentary evidence. The enquiry report at Annexure-10 reveals that the Presenting Officer produced the documents marked as exhibits, referring to which, the Enquiry Officer returned the findings. Admittedly, not a single witness was examined and the reason is best known to the Management. The documents were to be proved by the Management with examination of Bank officials as witnesses to substantiate the negligence and misconduct of the petitioner but it has been given a go-by. In a domestic enquiry, it is generally mandatory to examine Management witnesses to prove the charges if the delinquent employee denies the allegations levelled. Relying solely on unproven documentary evidence is legally insufficient and can render the enquiry findings as perverse. In normal practice, documentary evidence is let in through witnesses being examined. The witnesses may be the author of the documents or otherwise. In course of official business, any such documents prepared or brought into existence, if in case, sought to be submitted as evidence during enquiry, according to the Court, it shall have to be proved through witnesses even during a departmental action. A document cannot be expected as absolute proof of the facts stated therein unless its contents are corroborated and formally proved through oral testimony. In the case of the petitioner, he was absent when the evidence was adduced by the Management. Yet, in an ex parte enquiry, all such evidences are to be received in the manner contemplated under law. In other words, legal evidence is to be tendered in an enquiry, which could be formally accepted at the end. In the considered view of the Court, at least, a representative of the Management ought to have stepped in as a witness to prove the documents and only then, the same may be marked as exhibits followed by cross-examination for the side of the delinquent but it has not taken place in the case of the petitioner. The impugned report at Annexure-10 reveals that all the relevant documents have been received as evidence through the Presenting Officer. It is not revealed from the final order of the Disciplinary Authority as at Annexure-12 as to whether the Presenting Officer, who proved the documents and marked it as exhibits did have the authority to do so. Rather, the Court finds from Annexure-12 that the Disciplinary Authority concluded that the materials on record including the enquiry report have been gone through besides evidence, both oral and documentary, when no any witness was examined by the Management. As it appears, the Disciplinary Authority was casual in his approach and in a lackadaisical manner made the observation for having gone through the oral evidence when it was never adduced from the side of the Management. When a departmental proceeding is initiated, the Authority concerned should be alert and vigilant complying the rules with all sincerity as it cannot be an empty formality since the same could lead to a major penalty towards the end, which has happened in the case of the petitioner with his dismissal from the service. Page 25 of 35 Though the petitioner was absent during enquiry, the Management should have examined the witnesses initially proposed to prove the documents for a decision of the Enquiry Officer. It is quite uncharacteristic to notice that the Presenting Officer himself marked the documents as exhibits relied on by the Management without examination of a single witness to prove the same. Having said that, it shall have to be concluded that the manner in which the evidence was adduced by the Management cannot be countenanced even when it was in connection with an ex parte enquiry. 19. As stated before, when the Disciplinary Authority, even in absence of oral evidence, concluded and confirmed the findings of the Enquiry Officer by claiming that it has been gone through, no doubt is left to hold that there has been non- application of mind by him to the materials on record. The approach has been very casual and the Disciplinary Authority simply narrated the charges levelled and superficially examined the record without scrutinizing the evidence for an independent decision. Law is well settled that a Disciplinary Authority shall have to examine the materials available on record received as evidence during an enquiry and to assign reasons with finding on each of the charges framed against the delinquent even in an ex parte enquiry and not simply to confirm the view of the Enquiry Officer. On a reading of Annexure-12, this Court finds that no discussion has been held by the Disciplinary Authority on the Article of Charge even with reference to the documentary evidence received, if not oral but at the end reached at a conclusion that the charges are proved and hence, the petitioner deserves dismissal from service with immediate effect. A Disciplinary Authority may agree or disagree with the findings of the enquiry and it should clearly be demonstrated with a final order, but on bare perusal of Annexure-12, this Court is in agreement with Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate to hold that such an onerous responsibility cast upon him has not been properly discharged with independent findings on the Article of Charge on the face of the enquiry report. 19.1. Similar is of the view in respect of the decision in appeal as at Annexure-14, wherein, it has been concluded that the charges are very grave involving serious financial irregularities committed by the petitioner, which according to this Court, is a finding not really justifiable. It is not that the petitioner misappropriated and caused direct financial loss to the Bank. The allegation is with regard to creation of NPA, but from Annexure-14, it is made to understand that it was on account of the petitioner having accepted spurious gold ornaments pledged while handling the gold loans. There has been no detailed evidence received as to from whom the spurious gold items were received on pledge and it was on account of negligence and carelessness of the petitioner, while on official duty. By a cryptic order, the appeal was disposed of by opposite party No.2 approving dismissal of the petitioner from service without any such material on record confirming the final order i.e. Annexure-12. Page 27 of 35 According to Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate, there has been no allegation of any misappropriation by the petitioner and hence, it would not be proper to allege the charges to be grievous as held by opposite party No.2. Considering the above claim and for discussions held before, this Court is in no hesitation to conclude that even after an enquiry hurriedly accomplished, the exercise undertaken by the Disciplinary Authority up to disposal of appeal and decisions therein do reveal non-application of mind to the material evidence whatever received in the shape of documents while upholding the dismissal order of the petitioner. 20. One of the grounds is also about disproportionate punishment inflicted upon the petitioner not commensurating the charges alleged. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate would submit that the punishment is not proportionate to the charges levelled and proved and refers to a decision of the Apex Court in Bhagat Ram Vrs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (1983) 2 SCC 442. On the other side, Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate refers to the following decisions, such as, State Bank of India and others Vrs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde (2006) 7 SCC 212; Union of India and others Vrs. Ex-Constable Ram Karan (2022) 1 SCC 373; and State of Meghalaya and others Vrs. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580. 21. In Bhagat Ram (supra), it has been held that the punishment in a departmental enquiry must be proportionate to the gravity of misconduct and dismissal on a trivial charge of negligence which resulted in no loss to the establishment shall have to be held as excessive and disproportionate. In Ramesh Dinkar Punde (supra), the Apex Court justified imposition of major penalty on a Bank Officer found to be connected with issue of STDRs in the names of certain individuals against clearing cheques received from various Trusts/Boards after having managed sanction of overdraft limits for them and hence, committed the misconduct for his personal gain and against the interest of the Bank and depositors and hence, concluded that such misconduct must be dealt with sternly with no leniency shown to him and upheld the dismissal order when it was overturned by the High Court after re-appreciating evidence. The nature of mischief in Ramesh Dinkar Punde (supra) is grievous and therefore, the continuation of service of the delinquent therein was considered detrimental to the interest of the Bank but in so far as the petitioner is concerned, the charges are not so serious as it is regarding negligence in holding inspection and submitting inspection reports beyond prescribed mandays and about unauthorized absence at times and during the annual closing of the Bank in the month of March, 2003 and hence, acted not in accordance with Regulations 17, 19 and 22 of the Regulation and of course, towards creation of NPA. As mentioned before, no evidence was received during enquiry regarding the petitioner having received pledged spurious gold ornaments while clearing the gold loans having resulted in creation of the NPA for an amount of Rs.64,000/-. Precisely stated, the petitioner is found to be negligent while discharging the duty on certain occasions, but it has led to no serious loss to the Bank though NPA is allegedly created and the same is attributed to him. 21.1. In Ex-Constable Ram Karan (supra), the Apex Court again interfered with a decision to reinstate the delinquent, a member of CRPF, considering the nature of allegations against him and not only upheld the suspension but also his dismissal from the service finding him guilty of the charges levelled which included threat administered to the complainant, a doctor with such other allegations made after the nature of misconduct was proved to be unpardonable and under such circumstances, the Apex Court concluded that direction to reinstate him with all consequential benefits cannot be sustained in law. In Mecken Singh N. Marak (supra), the Apex Court held and observed that judicial review should be restricted to exceptional cases and punishment imposed unless shockingly disproportionate and that apart, the employee’s mental setup and nature of his duties are also relevant while considering proportionality and when jobs require utmost dignity, misconduct in such cases, cannot be dealt with leniently and therein, the delinquent was again a police personnel and hence, upheld the punishment of removal from service, which was overruled by the High Court directing the Appellate Authority to impose any other punishment short of removal. 21.2. No doubt, the petitioner was a Bank Official, who had the responsibilities which needed sincerity and discipline. But, for defending that, there was no evidence received from the petitioner as the enquiry was concluded ex parte. Hence, there is no evidence in rebuttal to challenge the Management’s claim. Even otherwise, the Article of Charge relates to negligence not in handling cash or any valuable of the Bank, but for not holding the routine inspections and submitting the reports in time. It is also alleged that the petitioner delayed inspections in respect of Branch beyond the prescribed mandays and held it belatedly. It is also alleged that he was frequently absent on and after 14th May, 2003 without prior sanction of the Authority concerned and especially, was found not there at the time of annual closing during March, 2003. Apart from the creation of the NPA, in respect of which no evidence for accepting spurious gold ornaments is received on record, the above are the other allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner had already served the Bank for nearly 25 years by the time of his removal from the service. The entire episode regarding negligence and misconduct is of the year 2003. The petitioner said to have been warned once before by the Disciplinary Authority. According to this Court, the allegations are not so grievous to consider removal of the petitioner by his dismissal from the service and it is grossly disproportionate unlike the facts of the case laws relied on by Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, wherein, the allegations were considered to be serious. The petitioner is alleged of negligence and absence from duty from 14th February, 2003 and onwards. But on a reading of the statement of the allegations at Annexure-1, such unauthorized absence is alleged on and from 14th February, 2003, whereas, the petitioner was called back to join duty with a telegram and letter dated 6th February, 2003. It is not clear as to from when he was absent and further, the petitioner was intimated to join by letter dated 6th February, 2003 when unauthorized absence at the Branch is alleged from 14th February, 2003 and thereafter. For such negligence and unauthorized absence alleged with no clarity as to from when it all started with the petitioner and that there was delay in submission of inspection reports within the prescribed mandays and having no convincing evidence received from the Management in proof of him having received spurious gold ornaments while dealing with gold loan accounts and hence, responsible for creation of NPA, this Court having taken judicial notice of the case laws placed reliance on by Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate is further inclined to hold that imposition of punishment of dismissal is grossly disproportionate. 22. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner contends that no second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the reason is unknown when in similar disciplinary proceedings, the Bank followed such practice before imposing punishments. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, in response to the above, submits that there is no requirement of issuance of a second show cause notice and reference is made to the decision of the Apex Court in State Bank of India and others Vrs. Mohammad Badruddin (2019) 16 SCC 69 and Chairman, Ganga Yamuna Gramin Bank and others Vrs. Devi Sahai (2009) 11 SCC 266. Nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court with respect to any such provision in the Regulation to substantiate the plea that the petitioner should have been served with a second show cause notice but in support of the contention advanced, Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate cited the decisions in State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vrs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others (2015) 1 SCC 347 and State of Madhya Pradesh Vrs. Chintaman Sadashiva Waishampayan AIR 1961 SC 1623. But having regard to the law decided in Mohammad Badruddin and Devi Sahai (supra), it has to be held that absence of any second show cause notice at the stage of punishment was not necessary in absence of any specific provision in the Regulation. In fact, in Devi Sahai (supra), it has been held that the penalty imposed on the employee is not vitiated on account of non-issuance of a second show cause notice in absence of any such provision in the Regulation and hence, compliance of the same is not necessary. Rather in Mohammad Badruddin (supra), it has been held that prior to the amendment of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, an opportunity was required to be given to submit representation on proposed penalty but it has been done away with by 42nd Constitutional Amendment and therefore, the mandate is only to apprise the delinquent of the Enquiry Officer’s report. As against the claim of the petitioner that in similar proceedings, the Bank has been following the practice of issuing second show cause notices to the employees, no explanation has been received except with the contention that the Regulation does not envisage any such procedure. But even considering the case laws cited from the side of the Bank though a second show cause notice is not necessary with the Constitutional amendment to Article 311, it is incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to apprise the delinquent before imposing punishment proposed. The petitioner having not participated in the enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority, as it appears, thought it not necessary even to inform him about the penalty likely to follow suit. Even in an ex parte enquiry, according to the Court, it would be the duty of the Disciplinary Authority to at least intimate the petitioner about the proposed penalty of dismissal from service. No such occasion arose in view of the absence of the petitioner. It could have been achieved by the Disciplinary Authority with an intimation to the petitioner but even without any such procedure followed. At the same time, in view of the decision in Devi Sahai (supra), the petitioner may even be said not to have been prejudiced in absence of any such provision in the Regulation applicable to the Bank. If in any other departmental proceedings, second show cause notices have been issued that itself cannot be the basis for the petitioner to demand similar treatment in absence of any provision in the Regulation and especially, when the law enunciated in Mohammad Badruddin (supra) obviated such requirement of issuance of second show cause notice. Page 34 of 35 23. The other case laws cited but not discussed by this Court is for the sake of gravity. To the extent necessary, the decisions relevant to the case have been discussed. Having given anxious consideration to the plea of the petitioner and defence of the Bank with the contentions of learned counsel for the respective parties noted down, this Court is inclined to hold that the enquiry was held hurriedly and concluded within no time even by not providing reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to respond and not only that, the authorities below did not discharge the onerous duty while exercising the powers with reference to the enquiry report and evidence received from the Management, which is unusually based on documents not introduced with the examination of any official witnesses initially proposed. That apart, independent scrutiny of the materials on record with findings on each of the charges levelled against the petitioner is found to be conspicuously absent, inasmuch as, the Disciplinary Authority and also the Appellate Authority in a casual manner concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Besides the above, this Court alive to the position of law laid down by the Apex Court with regard to judicial review is of the conclusion that for the negligence of the petitioner without any such serious financial regularities committed by him, the punishment of dismissal from the service is hugely disproportionate and therefore, the impugned decision vide Annexures-12 and 14 are liable to be set at naught directing re-instatement with notional continuity of his service upto the date of superannuation followed by release of full pensionary and terminal benefits in his favour as admissible to him. 24. Accordingly, it is ordered. 25. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed with a direction to opposite party No.1 to ensure compliance of the direction as aforesaid at the earliest preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 27th March, 2003 as at Annexure-12 and also the decision of the Appellate Authority vide Annexure-14 are hereby set aside. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Tudu/Rojina Designation: Junior Stenographer