IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos. 25775, 23081, 23082, 23183 & 27366 of 2017 W.P.(C) No. 25775 of 2017 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Chittaranjan Swain …. Petitioner -versus- Central Bank of India, Cuttack & Ors. …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. J.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.K. Sarangi, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. S. Sarangi, Advocate PRESENT: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 10.07.2026 & Date of Judgment: 08.09.2026 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. Since all these writ petitions have been filed by the Petitioners therein challenging the order issued by the Deputy Regional Manager, Regional Office, Central Bank of India by imposing punishment of dismissal without notice under Clause 6(a) of the Memorandum of Settlement on disciplinary action and procedure for Workmen dtd.10.04.2002 further confirmed by the appellate authority-cum-Sr. Regional Manager of the Opp. Party-Bank, all the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order. 2. It is the case of the Petitioners that all the Petitioners while continuing as Safai Karmachari-cum-Sub Staff in different Branches of Central Bank of India in the State on daily wage basis, in terms of the notice issued on 14.08.2012, for recruitment of Safai Karmachari- cum-Sub Staff and/or Sub-Staff, Petitioners participated in the said recruitment process. Vide the said notice and as an one time measure, it was decided to allow such temporary/casual workers so engaged in various branches of the Bank, to participate in the recruitment process for selection to the post of Subordinate Staff with the designation Safai Karmachari-cum-Sub Staff and/or Sub-staff on full time basis (as per the eligibility criteria), along with fresh candidates subject to fulfillment of various conditions so enumerated in Para 3 of the notice. Para 3 of notice reads as follows:- “3. As a one time measure such temporary/casual workers so engaged by various branches within the guidelines of Central Office Management will be allowed to participate in the Recruitment Process for selection to the post of sub-ordinate staff with the designation 'Safai Karmachari-cum-sub-staff and/or 'Sub-staff, on Full-Time basis (as per the eligibility criteria) along with fresh candidates, subject to fulfilling all the following conditions: a) Such temporary/casual worker should have been engaged in sub-ordinate cadre (including as Safai Karmachari) and have put in a minimum 45 days service during a continuous period of 12 months. The age of the candidate should have been between 18 to 26 (relaxable in eligible categories as per rules) when they were irfitially engaged as temporary/casual worker. c) The age of the candidate as on the date of this Settlement should not have been more than 45 years, irrespective of category (ie., SC/ST/OBC/GEN). d) The candidate should produce satisfactory proof acceptable to the Bank in support of his/her claim of having worked with the bank on temporary/casual basis for a minimum 45 days in a continuous period of 12 months. e) The Registration for employment with Employment Exchange by the candidate Is preferred, but not essential. Accordingly, the candidates having valid Registration with Employment Exchanges should attach the duly attested cards/proof to this effect, at the time of applying for the post in terms of this Settlement. f) In case any of the candidate had hitherto filled cases in Courts/ALC/RLC/CGIT etc seeking absorption in permanent employment in the Bank and such cases are still pending for final disposal, such candidates should willingly and unconditionally withdraw such cases filed by them before different fora prior to applying for participating in the Recruitment Process in which they are so allowed to participate in terms of this Settlement for the post of 'Safai Karmachari-cum-sub-staff and/or 'Sub-staff', subject to otherwise being eligible as per the eligibility criteria prescribed for respective post, and a declaration to this effect should be given along with an undertaking that he/she would abide by the results of the recruitment process. g) Notwithstanding what is stated above, where there are Awards / judgements of any Tribunal / Courts directing the Bank to include and consider any candidate while conducting future process, such candidates would be considered and allowed to appear in the interview process initiated in pursuance of this Settlement irrespective of the age and other eligibility criteria provided under this Settlement subject however that in any case the age at the time of interview should not be above 60 years. b). The Recruitment for the post of 'Safai Karmachari-cum- sub-staff' and 'Sub-staff under this dispensation (ie., for fresh candidates and also the candidates hitherto worked as temporary/causal worker and being eligible to apply for the same under this Settlement), shall be done through personal Interview of the eligible candidates by Committee/s to be constituted by the Management. i) Also note that 25% of the vacancies accruing in the Sub- staff cadre should be reserved for being filled by conversion from Full time Safai Karmacharis, who have put minimum of five years' of continuous service on full scale wages and who may not be possessing the qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment to the post but who may possess elementary literacy and give proof of ability to read either English or Hindi or regional language. For the purpose of determining whether such Safai Karmachari, possess elementary literacy and have ability to read either English or Hindi or regional language, it would be necessary to hold a simple written test. Minimum qualifying marks for all candidates will be 40% for General Category and 25% for SC/ST candidates. Successful candidates in written test may be interviewed. Candidates will have the option of writing the paper in English, Hindi and regional language. Conversion of successful candidates will be effected in the order of their SENIORITY against the sanctioned vacancies. Posting of successful candidates shall be made within the Region to the extent of sanctioned vacancies. If, in any Region availability of successful candidates are not sufficient to fill the sanctioned vacancies, successful empanelled candidates from other Region/s falling within the same state may be posted to such deficit Region/s to the extent of sanctioned vacancies. Request transfers, if any, as per the policy should be considered before posting of successful candidates. It may please noted that allowing the temporary/casual workers (being otherwise eligible to participate under this Settlement) along with the immediate Recruitment Process which will be conducted for selection of 'Safai Karmachari- cum-sub-staff' and/or 'Sub-staff', is a one-time measure applicable only for this process under this Settlement and shall not be quoted as a precedent, in future. Further, such temporary/casual workers who do not apply for the process under this dispensation (being otherwise eligible to participate under this Settlement) for the reasons what-so- ever and/or those who, having participated in the process but could not be selected therein, have no right/claim what- so-ever to be called again for such process in succession or in future.” 2.1. In the aforesaid notice the eligibility as to educational qualification and age so prescribed in Para 5 reads as follows:- “5. The eligibility as to educational qualifications and age is as follows: Educational Qualification: Minimum Eighth standard Pass or equivalent. Higher qualification do not have any concession, weightage in the service of the Bank. No candidate should claim any further promotion for higher grade on the basis of his higher qualification. A successful candidate will be appointed for the post of Safai Karmachari cum Sub-Staff-and/or Sub-Staff only irrespective of his/her higher educational qualification. Age: Minimum age limit 18 years completed and maximum 26 years with further relaxation of 5 years to SC/ST candidates and 3 years to OBC candidates and 10 years for PWDs, and for Widows, Divorced women and legally separated women 9 years (subject to max. age limit of 35 years from their husband who have not remarried for General and 38 years for OBC and 40 years for SC/ST candidates) For Ex-servicemen the relaxation in age will be upper age limit as above plus actual service, put in armed forces plus three years subject to actual age being not more than 45 years. Regional Offices are advised to identify Ex- Serviceman in the position of Hawaldar of below in the Army or equivalent rank in the Navy or Air Force.” 2.2. It is contended that all the Petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions duly participated in the selection process pursuant to notice dt.14.08.2012 and on being found suitable and eligible, were appointed as Safai Karmachari-cum-Sub Staff vide orders issued on different dates so enclosed to the writ petitions. 2.3. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that in terms of such order of regular appointment issued in the year 2013 as against the post of Safai Karmachari-cum-Sub Staff, Petitioners duly joined in the respective branch. It is however contended that while so continuing, proceeding was initiated against each of the Petitioners by the disciplinary authority who happens to be the Chief Manager of the Bank, Regional Office with the charge that Petitioners to get the benefit of regular appointment pursuant to notice dt.14.08.2012, have submitted forged School Leaving Certificates at the time of their joining in the Bank in the year 2013. 2.4. It is contended that subsequent to such appointment of the Petitioners in the year 2013 as against the regular post of Safai Karmachari-cum-Sub Staff and on verification of the educational qualification as well as date of birth of the Petitioners so produced by each of the Petitioners from different Schools, when it was found that such certificates so submitted by the Petitioners are forged one, the proceeding was initiated against each of the Petitioners. 2.5. It is contended that even though Petitioners took a stand that they have submitted genuine certificates in support of their qualification as well as age, but the enquiry officer when found the Petitioners guilty of the charges, show-cause notices were issued to the Petitioners proposing therein the punishment of dismissal. Even though Petitioners submitted their respective replies to such show-causes issued by the Opp. Party-Bank, but without proper appreciation of the stand taken in the reply to the show-cause, all the Petitioners were dismissed from their services vide different orders passed by the Opp. Party-Bank. 2.6. Challenging such order of dismissal so passed by the disciplinary authority, Petitioners when moved the appellate authority who happens to be the Regional Manager, but such appeals were also rejected. It is accordingly contended that in view of such order of dismissal passed in each of the cases, Petitioners not only lost their employment but also the livelihood and continuing without employment as on date. 2.7. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that in order to get the benefit of regular appointment pursuant to the notice issued by the Opp. Party-Bank on 14.08.2012 as against the post of Safai Karmachari-cum-Sub Staff, if Petitioners in support of their qualification and age, submitted the School Leaving Certificate so issued by the concerned Schools, which was found to be a forged one, for such wrong committed by the Petitioners, in the proceeding so initiated, no order of dismissal could have been passed, the same being disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. 2.8. It is contended that since Petitioners without knowing the repercussion of the certificates submitted by them at the time of their joining on being found eligible to get the benefit of regular appointment as against the post of Safai Karmachari-cum-Sub Staff and subsequently it was found that all those certificates submitted by the Petitioners are forged one basing on the letters issued by the concerned school authorities, for such nature of misconduct, order of dismissal could not have been passed. Not only that taking into account the status and education of the Petitioners, a lenient view should have been taken. It is accordingly contended that the order of punishment being disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, the same needs interference in each of the writ petitions. 2.9. In support of the submission, reliance was placed to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1987) 4 SCC 611. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 25 of the said decision has held as follows:- “25. Judicial review generally speaking, is not directed against a decision, but is directed against the “decision- making process”. The question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the court-martial. But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the court-martial, if the decision of the court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. Irrationality and perversity are recognised grounds of judicial review. In Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [(1984) 3 WLR 1174 (HL) : (1984) 3 All ER 935, 950] Lord Diplock said: “Judicial review has I think developed to a stage today when, without reiterating any analysis of the steps by which the development has come about, one can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds on which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground I would call ‘illegality’, the second ‘irrationality’ and the third ‘procedural impropriety’. That is not to say that further development on a case by case basis may not in course of time add further grounds. I have in mind particularly the possible adoption in the future of the principle of ‘proportionality’ which is recognised in the administrative law of several of our fellow members of the European Economic Community;. . .” 2.10. It is further contended that similar issue was also before the High Court at Telengana in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.(C) Nos. 32889, 32890, 32895, 32904, 32964 & 33161 of 2017 (G Suresh Kumar, Medak Dist vs. Chief Manager, Central Bank of India). The High Court at Telengana vide a common order, placing reliance on the decision in the case of Ranjit Thakur so cited (supra) and other decisions of the Apex Court, held the order of punishment of dismissal as disproportionate and while interfering with such orders, referred the matter to the appellate authority for consideration and imposing any other lesser punishment than the punishment of dismissal/removal/compulsory retirement. View of the High Court at Telengana in the case of G Suresh Kumar reads as follows:- “All these writ petitions are being disposed of by way of this common order as the issue raised in all these writ petitions is one and the same. Heard Sri Mohd. Islamuddin Ansari, counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Venkat Raghu Ramulu, Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.P.No.32889 of 2017 are hereunder discussed: It has been contended by the petitioner that she was appointed as Safai Karamchari-cum-Sub Staff on daily wage basis with the respondent Bank during 2007. While she was discharging her duties to the best satisfaction of her superiors and every one concerned, the respondents have invited applications by issuing an advertisement on 07.11.2012 to fill up the regular post of Safai Karmachari and the qualifications prescribed for the said post was that the candidate should have passed Class VIII. Since the petitioner was already working on daily wage basis as Safai Karmachari, she has responded to the said advertisement by submitting her application on 14.11.2012 along with xerox copies of her certificates of qualifications and proof of date of birth. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for interview on 07.02.2013 and she has attended the said interview. After undergoing AKS,J selection process, the petitioner was appointed as Safai Karmacharicum-Sub Staff vide orders dated 22.03.2013 and she has reported to duty on 01.04.2013. The petitioner further submitted that while she was discharging her duties as Safai Karmachari-cum-Sub- Staff, the respondents issued suspension order dated 19.03.2014 alleging that she has submitted fake transfer certificate and bona fide certificate to the effect that she had studied only upto Class VIII. Subsequently, the respondents issued memo on 20.03.2014 calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the disciplinary action should not be initiated against her. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted her explanation. However, having not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the respondents conducted departmental enquiry. On 02.04.2014, a charge memo was issued alleging that the petitioner has submitted fake School Certificates with malafide intention to secure employment and the same tantamounts to gross misconduct. In the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held that the charge framed against the petitioner is proved and a copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondents have issued show cause memo dated 31.07.2014 directing the petitioner to explain as to why she should not be dismissed from service. Later on, the petitioner has submitted an application requesting the respondents to take a lenient view. The petitioner has passed Class X at the time of joining to duty as Safai Karmachari on daily wage basis with the respondents, but, since the respondents have issued an advertisement for filling up the post of Safai Karmachari AKS,J with the candidate who passed Class VIII only, the petitioner had submitted fake school certificates to the effect that she has studied upto Class VIII. Thinking that if the petitioner discloses that she has already passed Class X and studied upto Intermediate, her case may not be considered, the petitioner under the bona fide impression had to submit fake certificates that she has passed Class VIII only and, therefore, requested the respondents to take a lenient view. But, the respondents, without notice, had dismissed the petitioner vide orders dated 04.08.2014. In W.P.Nos.32890 and 33161 of 2017, the petitioners have even preferred appeals against the orders of dismissal and the same were rejected by the appellate authorities. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the notification prescribed the qualification of Class VIII only and the petitioners, who were already working as Safai Karmachari on daily wage basis with the respondents since 2002, were over qualified, the petitioners unintentionally committed the mistake of submitting fake certificates. Therefore, the petitioners requested the respondents to take lenient view, but the respondents have imposed major punishment of dismissal, which is shockingly disproportionate to the charges leveled against the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749, wherein it was held as under: "What has been stated above may be buttressed by putting the matter a little differently. The same is that in a case of a dismissal, Article 21 gets attracted, and, in view of the interdependence of fundamental rights, which concept was first accepted in the case commonly known as Bank Nationalisation case (197) 1 SCC 248, which thinking was extended to cases attracting Article 21 in Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 the punishment/penalty awarded has to be reasonable; and if it be unreasonable, Article 14 would be violated. That Article 14 gets attracted in a case of disproportionate punishment was the view of this Court in Bhagat Ram v. State of H.P (1983) 2 SCC 422 also. Now if Article 14 were to be violated, it cannot be doubted that a High Court can take care of the same by substituting, in appropriate cases, a punishment deemed reasonable by it." Learned counsel for the petitioners has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Anand Acharya (2007) 9 SCC 310, wherein it was held as under: "The well-settled proposition of law that a court sitting in judicial review against the quantum of punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings will not normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty is not in dispute. However, if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the court, then the court would appropriately mould the relief either by directing the disciplinary/appropriate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed or to shorten the litigation it may make an exception in rare cases and impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof (see Bhagat Ram v. State of H.P (4 supra), Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 611 and U.P. SRTC v. Mahesh Kumar Mishra (2000) 3 SCC 450)." Learned counsel for the petitioners has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (6 supra), wherein it was held as under: "Judicial review generally speaking, is not directed against a decision, but is directed against the "decision-making process". The question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the court-martial. But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the court-martial, if the decision of the court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. Irrationality and perversity are recognized grounds of judicial review. In Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service8, Lord Diplock said: “Judicial review has I think developed to a stage today when, without reiterating any analysis of the steps by which the development has come about, one can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds on which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground I would call 'illegality', the second 'irrationality' and the third 'procedural impropriety'. That is not to say that further development on a case by case basis may not in course of time add further grounds. I have in mind particularly the possible adoption in the future of the principle of 'proportionality' which is recognized in the administrative law of several of our fellow members of the European Economic Community ;... Relying on the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate and the post which is being held by the petitioners is Safai Karmachari and that some of the petitioners in this batch of cases were already working on daily wage basis with the respondent Bank since 2002. Counsel for the petitioners further contended that it is only when the petitioners were discharging their duties with the respondents, the respondents have issued notification to fill up the vacancies of Safai Karmachari on regular basis and as the qualification prescribed for the said post is that the candidate should have passed Class VIII only, the petitioners submitted false educational qualification certificates to the effect that they have studied upto Class VIII only. Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that at the time of participating in the interview, the petitioners have submitted SCC original certificates for the purpose of age proof, which itself would disclose that the petitioners never wanted to cheat the respondents, and the respondents have seen the original SSC certificates at the time of interview and are fully aware that the petitioners have passed SSC, but later on issued the dismissal orders, therefore, the action of the respondents in dismissing the petitioners from service on the allegation that the petitioners have submitted false certificates is shockingly disproportionate. No doubt, the petitioners committed misconduct, but all misconducts may not end up with major punishment of dismissal and even any lesser punishment would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, counsel for the petitioners submitted that appropriate orders be passed in these writ petitions by setting aside the impugned orders holding that the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate to the charges leveled against the petitioners and remand the matters to the appellate authority so as to impose any other lesser punishment than the punishment of dismissal by duly taking into account the above referred judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents had contended that every opportunity was given to the petitioners to prove their innocence in the enquiry and the petitioners have admittedly furnished false certificates to the effect that they have studied only upto Class VIII, which is a misconduct, and the disciplinary authority has rightly imposed the punishment of dismissal for proven misconduct in the enquiry, therefore, there are no merits in these writ petitions and these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. This Court, having considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have imposed the major punishment of dismissal on small employees i.e., Safai Karmacharis who were initially appointed with the respondents on daily wage basis. In these cases, while the petitioners were discharging their duties with the respondents on daily wage basis, the respondents have issued notification on 07.11.2012 for filling up the post of Safai Karmachari and since the respondents have fixed the qualification that the candidate should have passed Class VIII only, the petitioners have submitted false certificates claiming that they have studied only upto Class VIII. No doubt, the act of the petitioners in submitting false certificates is a misconduct, but imposing major punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate to the charges leveled against the petitioners. Further, the petitioners never disputed about their misconduct and also they have been pleading before the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority to take a lenient view and to impose any lesser punishment so as to meet the ends of justice. It is not that for every misconduct, necessarily the respondent Bank must impose the punishment of dismissal. There are other factors also which have to be looked into by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority while imposing the major punishment of dismissal. Firstly, the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority ought to have looked that the petitioners were discharging their duties on daily wage basis. It is only when the notification was issued for the post of Safai Karmachari on 07.11.2012, the petitioners, after undergoing selections, were appointed as regular Safai Karmacharis. No doubt, the petitioners have committed misconduct of producing false certificates to the effect that they have studied only upto Class VIII. The disciplinary authority ought to have imposed any other lesser punishment than the punishment of dismissal, by applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranjit Thakur's case (6 supra), wherein theHon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that the punishment should commensurate to the charges leveled and the punishment should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. By applying the principles of proportionality, this Court is of the considered view that the punishment of dismissal is too harsh punishment for the alleged charge of submitting fake educational qualification certificates in respect of daily wage employees who got recruited through notification. In view of the above, the orders impugned in all these writ petitions are set aside, as the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate to the charges leveled against the petitioners. It is further directed that the matters in W.P.Nos.32890 and 33161 of 2017 are remanded to the appellate authorities, whereas the matters in W.P.Nos.32889, 32895, 32904 and 32964 of 2017 are referred to the appellate authorities concerned for consideration and imposing any other lesser punishment than the punishment of dismissal/removal/compulsory retirement by taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the cases. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.” 2.11. Reliance was also placed to another decision of the Kolkata High Court in the case of Ms. Thumpa Dey vs. Central Bank of India (W.P.(C) No. 231 of 2018 disposed of on 30.04.2019). The Kolkata High Court in the said decision has held as follows:- “When an authority takes the extreme step of dismissing an employee from service it ought to be extremely cautious to ensure that all the relevant evidence are taken into consideration to come to a conclusion to prove the misconduct of the employee. It should be kept in mind that upon dismissal the employee will lose her source of living. The employee and her family may pass through severe financial crisis due to loss of employment. The employer should not act in a casual manner and dismiss an employee from service based upon irrelevant consideration.” 2.12. Making all these submissions learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that with quashing of the impugned order of dismissal so passed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority in each of the writ petitions, the matter be remitted to the appellate authority to impose any lesser punishment than the punishment of dismissal, so held by the High Court of Telengana. 3. Mr. S. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party-Bank in each of the cases on the other hand made his submissions basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed. It is contended that Petitioners while continuing as Safai Karmachari on daily wage basis in different branches of the Bank, pursuant to the notice issued by the Opp. Party-Bank on 14.08.2012, all the Petitioners participated in the recruitment process for their recruitment and appointment as against the post of Safai Karmachari-cum-Sub Staff. 3.1. It is contended that as provided in the said notice dtd.14.08.2012 Petitioners though were found eligible to make the application having the required experience and period of service, but as provided under Para 5 of the said notice, Petitioners were required to possess the qualification of 8th Pass or equivalent and must be within the age of 18 years to 26 years relaxable by 5 years for SC/ST, 3 years for OBC and 10 years for PWD etc. 3.2. It is contended that Petitioners when were found eligible to get the benefit of appointment in terms of the notice dtd.14.08.2012, at the time of their joining, when they were asked to produce the necessary certificate in support of their qualification and age, all the Petitioners produced the certificates issued by different Schools in support of their qualification and age. Basing on such certificates produced by the Petitioners in support of their age and qualification, all the Petitioners were allowed to join after being appointed as against the regular post of Safai Karmachari-cum-Sub Staff. 3.3. However, it is contended that after such joining of the Petitioners when the Bank made necessary correspondence with the concerned Schools from which the Petitioners had produced the required certificates in support of their qualification and age and the School authorities intimated that all such certificates was never issued by them, for such misconduct on the part of the Petitioners in submitting forged certificates in support of their age and qualification to get the benefit of regular appointment as against the post of Safai Karmachari-cum-Sub Staff pursuant to notice dt.14.08.2012, necessary proceedings were initiated against them. 3.4. It is contended that in the said proceeding, the enquiry officer when found the Petitioner guilty of the charges, the Bank by following the stipulation contained under the relevant Regulation in terms of Para 5(m) of the memorandum of Settlement dtd.10.04.2002 proceeded against all the Petitioners. 3.5. It is contended that since certificates produced by the Petitioners in each of the cases in support of their qualification and age were found to be forged one basing on the letters issued by the concerned School and it was also established in the enquiry by following the provisions contained under the aforesaid memorandum of settlement dtd.10.04.2002, Petitioners were issued with the show-causes proposing the punishment of dismissal. 3.6. It is contended that after due consideration of the reply so made by the Petitioners to the show-causes issued to them and by following the provisions contained under the settlement dtd.10.04.2002, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal against each of the Petitioners. Appeal filed by the Petitioners against such order of dismissal was also confirmed by the appellate authority/Regional Manager of the Bank. 3.7. It is contended that since in order to get the benefit of regular appointment, Petitioners in support of their age and qualification produced forged certificates issued from different schools, by following due procedure of law with establishment of the misconduct, Petitioners have been dismissed from their services, no interference is called for. 3.8. It is also contended that similar issue was before this Court against similar order of dismissal in W.P.(C) No. 16928 of 2017. This Court vide order dtd.24.09.2024 dismissed the said writ petition relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. M/s. Afloat Textiles (I) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2009 (4) SCALE 94, Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. vs. Giridhari Lal Yadav reported in 2004 (6) SCC 325, Chittaranjan Das vs. Durgapur Project Ltd. reported in (1996) III LLJ 188 Cal. 3.9. It is contended that since similar order of dismissal passed and subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C) No. 16928 of 2017 was not interfered with by this Court, Petitioners being similarly situated, they are also not entitled to get any relief in view of the dismissal of W.P.(C) No. 16928 of 2017. 3.10. It is further contended that since Petitioners admittedly have produced forged certificate in support of their qualification and age, in view of such fraud committed by them, Petitioners are not eligible and entitled to get any relief. This Court in W.P.(C) No. 16928 of 2017 has held as follows:- “1. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner being an erstwhile employee/Sub-Staff (Group-D) of the Opposite Parties/Bank, has challenged the order of his dismissal from service dated 30.05.2017 so also the order of the appellate authority dated 02.08.2017. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief fact of the case in brevity as narrated by the Petitioner remains: (i) In the year 1986, the Petitioner was appointed as a casual worker in the Opposite Parties/Bank. The Petitioner was subsequently appointed as a Sub Staff in the Group-D category. The Petitioner is also a physically challenged person. (ii) After completion of almost 32 years in service, in the year 2016 the Petitioner was asked to submit necessary certificate for Official verification. Accordingly, on 10.03.2016, the Petitioner was issued with a memorandum, wherein it was mentioned that the certificate vide T.C. No.11 submitted by him at the time of his recruitment as SKSS in the year 2013, was found to be forged. The said certificate was issued by the Baitarani High School, Balipada, Bhadrak. (iii) Accordingly, the Petitioner in response to the said letter/memorandum dated 10.03.2016, submitted his explanation stating therein that the T.C. No.11 was issued by the Headmaster of the Baitarini High School. (iv) Thereafter, in order to find out the genuineness of the said certificate; an inquiry was conducted. Upon getting the communication issued for the above purpose, the Headmaster vide his/her letter No.1685 dated 10.09.2016 stated that there is no such record available relating to the certificate vide T.C. No.11. (v) Upon getting such information from the Headmaster, the Petitioner was charge sheeted vide order dated 27.09.2016 due to submission of fake certificate, wherein he was directed to submit the name of the defence representative and the witnesses, he intends to produce during course of inquiry. Thereafter, the Petitioner was served with the notice dated 10.10.2016 issued by the Disciplinary Authority. An instruction was issued through the said notice to initiate a departmental inquiry against the Petitioner. On the same day i.e. on 10.10.2016, another notice regarding appointment of one Satyajit Sahoo as the Presiding Officer was served on the Petitioner. (vi) Accordingly, on 08.11.2016, an inquiry was conducted by the Enquiring Office named Mr. B.C. Gantayat. (vii) After some time, since the Petitioner came to know that the proceeding was not conducted in a proper manner, he through the letter dated 13.02.2017, requested the authority concerned for permitting him to depute a defence assistance in his favour. He was, accordingly, on the last date of inquiry i.e. on 13.02.2017, permitted to do so. (x) Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer, on 03.04.2017, submitted his inquiry report. In the said report, it was clarified that though there was an allegation pertaining to the genuineness of the Transfer certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner, which was subsequently clarified by the Headmaster of the concerned School, the Management concerned was failed to produce the said Headmaster before the Enquiry Officer as a witness. The evidence of Sri S.C. Majhi, Senior Manager, M.W.2 recorded in the said report though speaks that he has not seen the entry of question in the Admission Register at his 1st inspection, finally the Enquiry Officer observed that the charge leveled against the Petitioner is proved. (xi) Thereafter, the Petitioner on 04.04.2017 requested the Deputy General Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Bhubaneswar/Opposite Party No.2 for calling the Headmaster of the Baitarini High School to justify the genuineness of the Transfer Certificate issued in his favour in the year 20.10.1986. (xii) Thereafter, vide memo No.282 dated 15.05.2017 the Petitioner was asked to submit the show cause against the proposed punishment of dismissal from service. (xiii) During course of personal hearing on 20.05.2017, the Petitioner had pointed out that though he submitted the correct certificate, he was not afforded with any opportunity to examine the Headmaster of the Baitarini High School. (xiv) On 30.05.2017, the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the Petitioner. Soon after getting such order of dismissal from service the Petitioner preferred an appeal to the Senior Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Bhubaneswar/ Opposite Party No.1. (xv) Upon hearing the parties concerned, the appellate authority by his/her order dated 02.08.2017 rejected the said appeal of the Petitioner in a mechanical manner. Hence, this Writ Petition. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions. (i) It is relevant to note here that during course of inquiry, the Petitioner had produced the letter dated 07.11.2016 issued by the Headmaster of the Baitarini High School, wherein the Headmaster had mentioned that the Petitioner was a student of Baitarini High School in the year 1981 and the Transfer Certificate issued in his favour is at Sl.No.58/359 instead of Sl.No.11. Pursuant to the letter No.1733 the Headmaster again clarified the reason of wrong mentioning of the serial number of the Transfer Certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner. In the said communication the Headmaster had stated that the Petitioner was admitted in the year 1981 vide Sl.No.58/359 and the counter folio of the Transfer Certificate bearing No.11 is not available in the Office of the School, which might have been issued inadvertently and the same was destroyed due to flood in the year 2011. (ii) Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that despite repeated request by the Petitioner for calling for the Headmaster to adduce his/her evidence, he was not permitted to do so by the Disciplinary Authority. He further submits that had the Petitioner been permitted to examine the Headmaster of the concerned School, the charges leveled against him would have been disapproved. (iii) Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that such order of punishment has not been passed in terms of the provision under Clause 6(a) of the memorandum of settlement dated 10.04.2002. (iv) He further contends that the order in the appeal has been passed without taking into consideration the report of the Enquiry Officer as well as the averments made in the memorandum of appeal. He also submits that despite submission of the information regarding genuineness of the certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner by the Headmaster of the Baitarini High School at a later stage, the same was not taken into consideration property. (v) Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the inquiry was conducted without appointment of any representatives on behalf of the Petitioner. However, on the last day of inquiry i.e. on 13.02.2017 the Petitioner was allowed to appoint one Sunil Kumar Maharana CTO as his defence representative. (v) He also contends that though the Petitioner was not well versed with the English language, the inquiry proceeding was conducted in English despite repeated objection by the Petitioner. (vi) The Petitioner has thus raised the following issues for proper and effective adjudication of the dispute. (a) Whether the charges framed against the Petitioner for submission of forged school leaving certificate while joining in the Bank as a regular employee has been duly proved or not? (b) Whether prior to imposition of major penalty like dismissal of the Petitioner from his service, due procedure as per the provision under Rule-12(a)(1) of the Memorandum of Settlement was followed or not (vii) At this juncture, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Enquiry Officer in his own findings has clearly mentioned regarding failure of the Management to produce the Headmaster of the School to adduce his evidence as a witness. (viii) He also contends that even after affirmation of the name of the Petitioner available in the School register by the Headmaster of the Baitarani High School and despite the Petitioner being a student of the said School, the Enquiry Officer on his own accord came to a conclusion that such fact is not a genuine one and the name of the Petitioner is added with a different ink at later stage. (ix) He further drawing the attention of this Court to the provision at Rule 12(a)(1) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10th April, 2002, submits that though there is a provision for representation of the delinquent by a representative of a registered trade union of the Bank employees, of which he is a member, the said procedure has not been followed during course of inquiry and on the last date of inquiry the Petitioner was permitted to be represented by one Sunil Kumar Maharana, CTO, Bhubaneswar. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in the process, submits that the disciplinary authority has failed to appreciate the principle of natural justice. (x) He, accordingly, prays for allowing the prayer made by the Petitioner in this Writ Petition. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES : 4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Opposite Parties/Bank authorities earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:- (i) From the initial stage of inquiry till the conclusion, the Petitioner has never raised any objection regarding his weakness in English language and he is not well conversant with the English language. (ii) He further contends that the Petitioner has himself refused to engage a representative to appear on his behalf. He also contends that the certificate submitted by the Petitioner himself shows that the Petitioner had studied up to class-IX and the Petitioner had submitted his application/Bio-data indicating therein that he knows English language. (iii) The letter dated 04.01.2017, issued by the Headmaster, is found to be equally false and fabricated. The District Education Officer, in his letter No.2407 dated 23.03.2017, after verifying the original register of Baitarani High School, found that the admission of the Petitioner is suspected as his name in the Admission Register is put in the last Sl.No.58/359 of the year 1981-82. He has also stated in the above letter that the said entry was made recently i.e. after getting the letter from the Bank. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 6. The law is well established that if an individual obtains an appointment through misrepresentation or by means of a forged or fabricated document, such an appointment is considered null and void in the eyes of the law, thereby conferring no rights upon the appointee. Furthermore, it is equally established that the principles of natural justice apply only in instances of legally valid appointments; an appointment that is deemed illegal due to fraudulent documentation does not grant any rights to the individual, as fraud nullifies all claims. 7. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v. M/s Aafloat Textiles (I) Pvt. Ltd. elaborated upon the maxim “fraud vitiates every solemn act” underscores that any act tainted by fraudulent conduct is rendered void ab initio: “11. “Fraud” as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which includes the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations, which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata.” 8. In the case of Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Another v. Girdhari Lal Yadav,2 the Supreme Court considered the applicability of principles of natural justice in cases involving fraud and held as under : “12. Furthermore/ the respondent herein has been found guilty of an act of fraud. In opinion, no further opportunity of hearing is necessary to be afforded to him. It is not necessary to dwell into the matter any further as recently in the case of Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi this Court has noticed : "15. Commission of fraud on court and suppression of material facts are the core issues involved in these matters. Fraud as is well-known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwells together. 16.Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person, or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of former either by word or letter. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. … 18. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad." 19. In Derry V. Peek (1889) 14 AC 337 it was held: "In an action of deceit the plaintiff must prove actual fraud. Fraud is when it is shown that a false representation has been made knowingly, or without belief in its truth, or recklessly, without caring whether it be true or false.” 9. In Chittaranjan Das v. Durgapore Project Ltd.,3 the Calcutta High Court held that in situations where a vital document is obtained through fraudulent means, the integrity of the entire process is compromised. “56. Suppression of a material document which affects the condition of service of the petitioner, would amount to fraud in such matters. Even the principles of natural justice are not required to be complied with in such a situation. 57. It is now well known that a fraud vitiates all solemn acts. Thus, even if the date of birth of the petitioner had been recorded in the service returns on the basis of the certificate produced by the petitioner, the same is not sacrosanct nor the respondent company would be bound thereby.” 10. In light of the established legal principles, and returning to the matter at hand, it is undisputed that the authenticity of the Transfer Certificate (TC) presented by the petitioner is in serious doubt, a concern that has been corroborated by the District Education Officer. This situation exemplifies a clear instance of fraud, which, by its very nature, undermines the integrity of any legal proceedings or documents.. V. CONCLUSION: 11. In light of the aforementioned reasons, this Court finds no basis for interfering with the dismissal order. 12. Given the conscious perpetration of fraud by the Petitioner in securing his appointment within the institution, the thirty years of service he rendered becomes inconsequential, as the legal principle dictates that fraud vitiates everything including some solemn acts. 13. Consequently, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Any I.A. pending before this Court stands disposed of.” 3.11. Making all these submissions learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party-Bank contended that no interference is called for with the impugned order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority further confirmed by the appellate authority in each of the cases. 4. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that all the Petitioners while continuing as Safai Karmachari-cum-Sub Staff on daily wage basis in different branches of the Opp. Party-Bank, pursuant to the notice issued by the Opp. Party-Bank on 14.08.2012, Petitioners participated in the recruitment process for their appointment as against the post of Safai Karmachari-cum-Sub Staff and/or Sub Staff. 4.1. It is found and which is not disputed, Petitioners on being found eligible were provided with appointment as against the post of Safai Karmachari-cum-Sub Staff vide different orders, issued by the Opp. Party-Bank so enclosed to each of the writ petitions. 4.2. It is however found while allowing the Petitioners to join, when they were asked to submit the certificate in support of their age and qualification, all the Petitioners produced the certificates issued by the concerned Schools. Basing on such submission of the certificates, Petitioners were allowed to join as against the post of Safai Karmachari-cum-Sub Staff. 4.3. However, it is found that Opp. Party-Bank on verification from the concerned Schools in each of the cases, when found that Petitioners have submitted forged certificates from the Schools in question in support of their age and qualification, Opp. Party-Bank initiated disciplinary proceeding against each of the Petitioners in terms of the provisions contained under Para 5(m) of the memorandum of settlement dtd.10.04.2002. 4.4. As found in the said proceeding, Petitioners were held guilty of the charges by the enquiry officer. Basing on such report submitted by the enquiry officer in each of the cases, Petitioners were issued with the show-causes proposing the punishment of dismissal. As found all the Petitioners submitted their respective replies to the show-causes and in consideration to the same, the disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal against each of the Petitioners. 4.5. It is also found that challenging such order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority, all the Petitioners when moved the appellate authority who happens to the Regional Manager of the Bank, the appellate authority also dismissed the appeals so filed in each of the writ petitions. 4.6. It is also found that similar issue was before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 16928 of 2017 and this Court in its judgment dtd.24.09.2024 refused to interfere with the similar nature of punishment of dismissal. However, it is found that similar issue has been dealt with by the High Court at Telengana in a different way and while interfering with the punishment, the High Court at Telengana referred the matter to the appellate authority to impose any other punishment, save and except the punishment of dismissal placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjit Thakur so cited (supra) and so also other reported decisions of the Apex Court. 4.7. This Court taking into account the nature of order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 16928 of 2017 and the High Court of Telengana in various writ petitions so cited supra, is of the view that since Petitioners were all working as Safai Karmachari on daily wage basis and in order to get the benefit of regular appointment and on being asked produced certificates from different Schools in support of their age and qualification, which were subsequently found to be a forged one, this Court is of the view that taking into account the status as well as the education of the Petitioners, punishment of dismissal is not commensurate to the alleged misconduct. 4.8. Therefore, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ranjit Thakur and other decisions so followed by the High Court of Telengana, this Court while interfering with the impugned order of dismissal in each of the cases, with quashing of the order passed by the appellate authority for the present, remits the matter to the appellate authority-Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Bhubaneswar, to impose any punishment other than the punishment of dismissal/removal/compulsory retirement, if the order passed by the High Court of Telengana and relied on by the Petitioner has been implemented. 4.9. This Court is inclined to pass such an order taking into account the education and social status of the Petitioners and loss of livelihood of each of the Petitioners after being dismissed from their services in the year 2016. This Court is also of the view that High Court of Telengana has taken a mere pragmatic view of the issue while dealing with similar matter and inclined to follow the same. 5. All the writ petitions accordingly stand disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 8th September, 2026/Sneha