‘Work with love or sit at temple gate’: Orissa High Court invokes Khalil Gibran, upholds removal of Bank of Baroda officer 

The Orissa High Court quoted Khalil Gibran’s poem ‘On Work’, stating that if an employee finds their duty “distasteful”, they should step away from the profession entirely:

“And if you cannot work with love but only with distaste, it is better that you should leave your work and sit at the gate of the temple and take alms of those who work with joy.”

Further, to emphasise that adulthood and professional life are defined by responsibility, the bench quoted Ellen Sturgis Hooper: “I slept, and dreamed that life was Beauty; I woke, and found that life was Duty.” 

Justices Krishna S Dixit and Chittaranjan dismissed the appeal of the Bank of Baroda officer, finding no exceptional case.

“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 the intent to cling on to the same place,” the Orissa High Court said on April 21. 

‘No clean hand, heart’

• The Orissa High Court held that merely stating that an opportunity was not given would not suffice in the absence of demonstrable prejudice caused by the alleged breach of natural justice.
• The Orissa High Court stated that ordinarily, employees in public service are expected to join the places to which they are transferred in due course.
• The Orissa High Court observed that it hardly needs to be stated what difficulties the public service of banking would suffer when employees defy transfer orders with the intent to cling to the same place.
• The court further found that the disciplinary proceedings were held with due participation and found no merit in the contention of the petitioner that the proceedings were hastily completed by the Bank of Baroda.
• The Orissa High Court dismissed the appeal of the bank officer, finding no exceptional case, and observed that non-compliance with transfer orders would create serious difficulties in banking service, which operates on an all-India basis.

• The court also observed that a person who does not approach the court with clean hands, clean heart and clean head is not entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction.
• The officer of Bank of Baroda had not disclosed material facts regarding her siblings, and the court noted that there was no reason to assume that her doctor brother would not look after the aged parents in the evening of their lives.
• The Orissa High Court held that it was not the case of the officer that she had no siblings or that her brother was estranged from the parents.

Joining in 2011, transfer order of 2019

It was placed on record that the woman joined the Bank of Baroda as a junior manager group (JHMG) officer in May 2011 and was working only in the Bhubaneswar region throughout the time. 

It was further found that the transfer order of May 2019 directed the bank officer’s transfer from the Bhubaneswar region to the Godhra region, but was not did not abide by it. 

It was also placed on record that she also remained absent unauthorisedly for quite a long period, eventually resulting in the institution of disciplinary proceedings with her full participation, culminating in an order of removal simpliciter. 

The officer of the Bank of Baroda justified her non-compliance by stating that she had to take care of her aged and ailing parents, and therefore could not relocate. 

She also challenged the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her, arguing that the inquiry was conducted hastily, violated principles of natural justice, and that the punishment of removal from service was too harsh. 

Her challenge was first rejected by a single judge, following which she filed an intra-court appeal before the high court. 

Extremely penalty

Appearing for the Bank of Baroda officer, advocate Sidheswar Mallik argued that the inquiry was farcically held in haste with no due opportunity of participation, and therefore, there is a violation of principles of natural justice. 

It was further added that even otherwise, removal from service on the ground of unauthorised absence is an extreme penalty, the job being the only source of livelihood, and therefore, the same spurns the doctrine of proportionality.

No entry in domain of punishment

Representing the Bank of Baroda, advocate K M H Niamat resisted the appeal, submitting justification of the previous order and the reasons on which it has been structured. 

He contended that an intra-court appeal of the kind has its own limitations and therefore, a deeper examination of the findings of the disciplinary authority, as affirmed by the appellate authority and later reaffirmed by the single judge, cannot be undertaken in this limited jurisdiction. 

It was further submitted that once the finding of guilt is recorded in a duly constituted inquiry, the court will not enter the domain of punishment, which exclusively is of the disciplinary authority.