Appeal dismissed as court finds no merit in claims of violation of natural justice and disproportionality of punishment
In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court has dismissed the appeal of Itishree Nath, a former Bank of Baroda employee, challenging her removal from service due to unauthorized absence and non-compliance with a transfer order. The Division Bench comprising Justices Krishna S. Dixit and Chittaranjan Dash upheld the decision of the disciplinary authority, emphasizing the importance of public service discipline and the necessity of adhering to transfer orders in all-India services like banking.
The appellant, Itishree Nath, had contested her removal arguing that her absence was due to her obligation to care for her aged and ailing parents. She further claimed that the disciplinary proceedings violated principles of natural justice and that the punishment was disproportionate, given her job was her sole source of livelihood.
However, the court found these arguments unconvincing. It noted that Nath did not provide adequate evidence demonstrating prejudice from the alleged violation of natural justice. Moreover, the court observed that Nath had siblings who could assist with parental care, undermining her justification for non-compliance with the transfer order.
The court reiterated the established legal principle that transfer orders are an inherent condition of service, especially in public sector roles where such mobility is essential for operational efficiency. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court, the bench held that refusal to comply with a transfer order constitutes misconduct and warrants disciplinary action, including removal.
Regarding the proportionality of the punishment, the court maintained that such determinations are within the purview of the disciplinary authority. It found no foundational pleadings concerning livelihood dependency or disproportionality were made at any stage of the proceedings.
In its judgment, the court emphasized the high standards expected of public servants, quoting literary figures to illustrate the dedication required in public service roles. It concluded that the removal order, being non-stigmatic, did not warrant interference by the court.
The ruling underscores the judiciary's stance on maintaining discipline within public services and the limited scope for challenging administrative decisions in the absence of clear procedural violations or exceptional circumstances.
Bottom line:-
Service Law - Challenge to removal from service on grounds of unauthorized absence and non-compliance with transfer order - Principles of natural justice, proportionality of punishment, and public service discipline discussed - Appeal dismissed due to lack of merit.
Statutory provision(s): Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Itishree Nath v. Bank of Baroda, (Orissa)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2889238
