Orissa High Court
WA/602/2026 of SANDEEP KUMAR DAS Vs THE REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, UNION BANK OF INDIA, BHUBANESWAR on 18 May 2026
of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.602 of 2026 Sadeep Kumar Das …. Appellant Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Akshaya Kumar Jena, Advocate -versus- Regional Manager, Regional Office, Union Bank of India, Bhubaneswar and others …. Respondents
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.602 of 2026
Sadeep Kumar Das
….
Appellant
Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Akshaya Kumar Jena, Advocate
-versus-
Regional Manager, Regional
Office, Union Bank of India,
Bhubaneswar and others
….
Respondents
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Order No.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
18.05.2026
01.
1. The instant appeal arises from an order dated 18th March, 2026 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.18997 of 2023 is dismissed.
2. The appellant (petitioner) challenged the order of punishment inflicted upon him by the Disciplinary Authority finding him guilty of charges and inflicted the punishment of compulsory retirement instead of termination and/or removal from service. According to the appellant, the order of punishment is too excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of the allegations and/or charges and, therefore, the Court ought to have interfered therewith and set aside the punishment of compulsory retirement by replacing the same with any other penalties provided in the rules and/or the statute governing the field.
3. The disciplinary proceeding was initiated on the allegations that the appellant used the debit card belonging to a customer of the bank and withdrew Rs.43,000/- from the ATM machine. The appellant was permitted to respond to such allegations, which he, in fact, did, but on the next date, by writing a letter in his own handwriting admitted to have committed such act and on the basis of the same, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to hold that the appellant is guilty of the misconduct and the charges leveled against him are proved.
4. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Single Bench misconstrued the reply submitted by the appellant in response to a show-cause notice containing the article of charges where the appellant did not admit in express term the allegations made against him. According to him, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded on a subsequent letter written in the handwriting of the appellant as an admission to such charges/allegations and, therefore, both the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Court failed to take into such honest conduct of the appellant in interfering with the major penalty in the form of the compulsory retirement.
5. The zone of consideration in the instant appeal is restricted to the quantum of the penalty having imposed upon the appellant and not on the merit of the allegations or a defence put forth before the Disciplinary Authority. It is no gainsaying that the writ Court should be slow and circumspect in interfering with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the scope and the jurisdiction exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. The writ Court cannot act as an appellate Court and decide the nitty-gritty of the findings based on facts but must travel on the circumference of the violation of the statutory provisions or constitutional rights or on the anvil of reasonableness as well as arbitrariness.
6. So far as the quantum of punishment imposed upon the delinquent is concerned, the interference is further limited to the extent whether the imposition of penalty has shocked the conscience of the Court and is not in commensurate with the gravity of the allegations and/or offence/misconduct of the delinquent. It further founded upon the principles of reasonableness and the moment the Court finds that the penalty so imposed is not excessive or disproportionate to the extent of shocking the conscience, the Court should refrain from interfering with the order of the Disciplinary Authority.
A person, who is working in a bank, is expected to show the high degree of integrity, honesty and resilience in discharge of the duties. It is not expected that while swiping in the Automated Teller Machine (ATM), a debit card mistakenly fell from the rightful customer would be utilized for the purpose of withdrawal of the amount from the ATM. It further requires the secret information to complete the transaction and the moment the transaction is found successful, it is strengthened that the appellant had the knowledge of the secret information, which cannot be said to be a mere mistake and/or a lapse on the part of the delinquent. Since the delinquent reimbursed the said amount in the account of the bona fide customer, the bank took a lenient view in not imposing the penalty in the form of a removal and/or a termination, which had a larger impact in future employment, but have imposed a mild penalty of compulsory retirement, which cannot be said to be disproportionate to the gravity of the allegations leveled against the appellant.
7. We do not find any ground warranting the interference with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. The instant writ appeal is, thus, dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
M. Panda Digitally Signed Signed by: MRUTYUNJAYA PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-May-2026 14:12:29 Signature Not Verified