Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 4644 of 2015 (CNR No. ODHC010430562015) Sarat Kumar Mishra ..... Petitioner Mr. A.K. Mohapatra, Adv. -versus- Punjab National Bank & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. A. Swain, Adv. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 08.09.2026 Order No. 06 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “In the circumstances the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court will graciously be pleased to issue RULE NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the orders contained in Annexure-1 and 2 shall not be quashed; AND Why the petitioner shall not be granted increment of pay for the period of reduction; AND Why the petitioner shall not be granted all consequential service and financial benefits accruing there from; Page 2 of 4. AND If the opposite parties fail to show cause or insufficiently show cause the said Rule may please to be made absolute; AND Any issue any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper. AND For which act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 4. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide order dated 09.12.2011 under Annexure-1, Petitioner was imposed with the following punishment:- “Reduction of his salary by nine stages in the time scale of pay in which he is presently placed till the date of his superannuation i.e. 30.09.2014 with further direction that he will not earn increment of pay during the period of such reduction.” 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that as per the service regulation governing the filed even though such an appeal was required to be filed within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the order of punishment, but because of some practical difficulties, Petitioner filed the appeal with delay along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. But the Appellate Authority-Opp. Party No.2 only on the ground that the appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation, did not entertain the appeal and rejected the same vide his order dated 21.12.2013 under Annexure-2. Page 3 of 4. 5.1. It is contended that since Petitioner in the proceeding in question was imposed with a major punishment, even if there is delay in filing the appeal, the Appellate Authority should have entertained the appeal by condoning the delay and decide the issue on merit. Since the Appellate authority only on the ground of delay did not entertain the appeal, with quashing of the order under Anenxure-2, Opp. Party No.2 be directed to decide the appeal on merit. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party-Bank on the other hand contended that since as per the regulation, the appeal is required to be filed within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the order of punishment and admittedly the appeal was filed much beyond the period of limitation, no illegality can be found with the action of Opp. Party No.2, in not entertaining the appeal on the ground of delay, so reflected in order dated 21.12.2013 Annexure-2. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner in the proceeding in question was imposed with the major punishment of reduction in salary by 9 stages. Since Petitioner was imposed with a major punishment in the proceeding in question, it is the view of this court that, even though there is delay in filing the appeal, but the Appellate Authority by taking a lenient view of the matter should have condoned the delay and decide the Appeal on merit. Page 4 of 4. 7.1. Since as found from Annexure-2, Opp. Party No.2 only on the ground of delay did not entertain the appeal, this Court for the present is inclined to quash the order under Annexure-2. 7.2. While quashing order dated 21.12.2013 under Annexure-2, this Court directs Opp. Party No.2 to take up the Appeal and decide the same in accordance with law on merit and by giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Jyoti