CUTTACK: In a judgment blending literature with service law, the Orissa High Court dismissed a former bank officer’s writ appeal against her removal for unauthorized absence, stressing discipline in all-India banking services and limited judicial interference in disciplinary matters.A Division Bench of Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice Chittaranjan Dash opened with Lebanese-American poet Khalil Gibran’s words: “You work that you may keep pace with the earth and the soul of the earth… And if you cannot work with love but only with distaste, it is better that you should leave your work…”The appellant, an officer of a nationalised bank appointed as a Junior Manager in 2011, had served in Bhubaneswar throughout before being transferred to Godhra in June 2019.
She did not join the new posting and remained absent for a prolonged period, leading to disciplinary proceedings and her eventual removal. A Single Judge had earlier rejected her plea in September 2024.Challenging that order, the officer argued she was compelled to stay back to care for her aged and ailing parents. She also alleged that the inquiry was rushed and violated principles of natural justice, and that removal was a disproportionate penalty given that the job was her only livelihood.
The HC, however, found no merit in these claims. In the April 21 judgment, the Bench noted that the inquiry was conducted with her participation and recorded: “merely saying that opportunity was not given would not suffice in the absence of demonstrable prejudice.” In a sharp observation, the judges added: “The plea of violation of principles of natural justice cannot be chanted like vedic mantra. It does not demonstrate substance but generates senseless sound.
”On her personal grounds, the Bench pointed to non-disclosure of key facts, including the existence of siblings who could assist in caring for their parents. This omission, it held, amounted to suppression of material facts, weakening her case.Addressing proportionality, the Bench said employees in public service are expected to comply with transfer orders, warning that defiance would disrupt banking operations.
It reiterated that once misconduct is established through a fair inquiry, the choice of punishment lies primarily with the employer.Finding no exceptional circumstance warranting interference, the Bench concluded the appeal was “devoid of merit” and dismissed it.The Bench further underlined: “Ordinarily, the employees in public service like the one in this case are expected to join the places to which they are transferred in due course. It hardly needs to be stated as to what all difficulties the public service of banking would suffer when employees defy transfer orders with intent to cling on to the same place.”
