Cuttack: In a notable judgment blending poetry with principles of public service discipline, the Orissa High Court has dismissed a former bank officer’s appeal against her removal from service for prolonged unauthorised absence after she refused to comply with a transfer order.
A division bench comprising Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Chittaranjan Dash opened the proceedings by invoking lines from Lebanese-American poet Khalil Gibran’s work The Prophet: “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 judges used the quote to emphasise the dignity of work and the expectation that public sector employees, particularly in banking, must approach their duties with commitment rather than reluctance.
The appellant, who joined a nationalised bank (Bank of Baroda) as a junior manager in 2011 and had served entirely in Bhubaneswar, was transferred to Godhra in Gujarat in June 2019. She failed to report at the new posting and remained absent for an extended period, prompting disciplinary proceedings that culminated in her removal from service.
A single judge of the High Court had earlier rejected her challenge to the termination in September 2024.
In her appeal, the woman contended that she had to remain in Bhubaneswar to care for her aged and ailing parents. She also alleged that the departmental inquiry was conducted hastily, in violation of principles of natural justice, and that the penalty of removal was disproportionate, especially since the job was her sole source of livelihood.
The division bench, however, found no substance in these arguments.
Delivering the judgment on April 21, the court observed that the inquiry was held with the appellant’s participation. It noted that a mere claim of denied opportunity, without showing any demonstrable prejudice, does not vitiate proceedings. The judges remarked sharply that pleas of violation of natural justice “cannot be chanted like vedic mantra” and that such arguments often “do not demonstrate substance, but generate senseless sound.”
The bench further pointed out that the appellant had suppressed material facts by not disclosing that she has a brother and a sister who could have shared the responsibility of caring for their parents. This omission, the court held, weakened her case significantly.
On the broader issue of transfers, the High Court underscored that employees in public service, especially in all-India institutions like nationalised banks, are expected to comply with transfer orders 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,” the bench observed, warning that such defiance could seriously disrupt banking operations.
The court concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting judicial interference in the disciplinary action and described the appeal as “devoid of merit.” It also reiterated the limited scope for judicial review in service matters involving discipline and misconduct.
