To

The Managing Director,

Orissa State Cooperative Bank Ltd.
Bhubaneswar.
Sub : Illegal “dismissal” of my husband Sri Satyanarayan Panda Ex-Deputy General Manager,
Odisha State Cooperative Bank Ltd from his service violating the principles of natural justice and
provisions laid down in OSCB staff service rules.

Respected Sir,
With due respect, I humbly draw your kind attention to the injustice and inhuman treatment meted
out to my husband Sri Satyanarayan Panda Ex-Deputy General Manager, OSCB for your kind
intervention. He became victim of witch hunt unleashed against him by Sri Tusarkanti Panda, the
then Managing Director of Orissa State Cooperative Bank out of personal vendetta in collusion
with the vested interest. He had met with a very raw deal and bonafide decisions taken by him had
been treated as the justification to dismiss him from service, with scant regard to the provisions of
OCS Act & rules, staff service rules and circular guidelines of RBI, NABARD, RCS and AGCS.
Most of the actions taken by husband were on the lines of the actions taken by his predecessors
and counterparts in other DCCBs in similar circumstances, and were, in every case, actuated by
the urgency of the situation which, significantly, had never been questioned, at any stage, either
by the supervising officers of OSCB, inspecting officers of NABARD, statutory auditors and
departmental concurrent auditors. My husband had challenged the unauthorised disciplinary
proceeding charge memo and the vindictive act of Tusharkanti Panda, the then Managing Director
of OSCB in the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.C. No. 2085/2014 and the Hon’ble High Court passed
order on 25.07.2014 observing that in view of availability of statutory remedy to the Plaintiff under
Sec 67-B of the OCS Act, the writ application is dismissed. Thereafter, my husband had filed a
service dispute before the Hon’ble Cooperative Tribunal vide Service Dispute No. 8/2015
challenging the illegal disciplinary action taken against him praying for reinstatement in service
quashing the disciplinary proceeding including the order of punishment inflicted on him to remove
the blemish cast on him by the impugned dismissal order. He is undergoing the ordeal of a
prolonged litigation for last five years causing immense pain, humiliation and hardship to his
family as the service dispute is pending adjudication since long on various technical grounds due

1
to the machinations and non cooperative attitude of advocate of OSCB without going to the point
of law.

In the circumstances, basic civility demanded that, before throwing him out of his job, some
modicum of application of mind, to the principles of natural justice, was extended. I am constrained
to submit that, for reasons recondite, a concerted effort, to remove my husband from the
organization, was made, and was successful. As a result, my husband lost his job, and has to suffer
the ordeal of a prolonged litigation for over a half decade as on date. The disciplinary authority, in
proceeding against him, did not act bona fide. The punishment imposed on the my husband was
not mere “removal”, but dismissal, to ensure that he would be ineligible to secure any other
employment apart from forfeiture of his entire gratuity, leave salary and pension. He had
deliberately, been visited with the most extreme punishment which, under the applicable Rules,
could be imposed on him. The punishment of dismissal from service awarded to my husband is,
indeed, so severe, as to result in civil death, wiping out him, as well as his entire family and those
dependent on him, financially, professionally and socially. He had to undergo the indignity of an
unauthorised disciplinary proceeding and all its agonizing sequel, merely because, in the opinion
of the disciplinary authority, the officer could have acted otherwise, or exercise his discretion in
another manner. I would submit that decisions have, often, to be taken by responsible officers on
the spur of the moment, keeping in mind the best interests of the organization or department, of
which they are an integral part. The decisions of my husband taken bona-fide as CEO of Cuttack
CCB which were questioned in the NABARD inspection report for the year 2012-13 had been
vetted and justified by the Management of Cuttack CCB while submitting a detailed compliance
report on the same. The entire exercise of disciplinary action, taken against my husband in the
manner of a Kangaroo Court, stands vitiated having been initiated without authority and
jurisdiction. He was proceeded with, in complete violation of the staff service Rules, principles of
natural justice and in deliberate disregard, of what constitutes “misconduct”, as to justify action
against my husband held guilty thereof through a perverse departmental enquiry conducted behind
his back. It is an established fact that “Misconduct” means conduct arising from ill-motive. Since
none of the actions or decisions of my husband was arising from ill-motive to hold him guilty of
“Misconduct” as the Management of Cuttack CCB had justified all his actions to be proper and
necessary while submitting point wise compliance on the observations made in the NABARD
inspection report.

2
He had been deliberately and mercilessly dismissed from service in illegal manner which had a
catastrophic effect on his service career as an dynamic and efficient CEO in the Cooperative
Banking Sector of the State thereby smothering his career, life span, savings, honour, as well as
self-esteem and consequently resulting in total devastation of the peace of our entire family which
is an ineffaceable loss. We had to suffer humiliation, disgrace, tremendous harassment and
immeasurable anguish without any fault for the malicious action of Sri T.K.Panda against my
husband. His dignity and self-esteem which are basic to human rights were jeopardized for holding
him guilty of financial irregularities he has not committed eventually, despite all the glory of the
past, he was compelled to face cynical abhorrence. A conspiracy was hatched against him and he
was framed in false, fabricated and concocted charges.

At the outset, I briefly outline hereunder the facts and circumstances leading to his illegal dismissal
from service through a malicious disciplinary proceeding initiated by the ex-Managing Director
(MD) of OSCB, Shri T.K.Panda without authority and jurisdiction in a vindictive manner violating
the principles of natural justice and provisions of the staff service Rules of the Bank.

1. With ulterior motive a departmental officer of Cooperation department was appointed as

enquiry officer for the said domestic enquiry instituted against my husband in an unusual
manner which had never happened in OSCB before. The said enquiry officer who was
supposed to act as a quasi-judicial authority in the position of an independent adjudicator
functioned as a representative of the authority of the Bank and concluded the departmental
enquiry in absence of my husband on a single sitting establishing all charges against him
without examining any oral evidence and primary documentary evidence and files basing
on which the alleged charges were supposed to have been framed violating all the
principles of law. Since he had solely relied on inconclusive documents like the NABARD
inspection report and special audit report of Cuttack CCB manufactured behind the back
of my husband which are yet to be proved and have no evidentiary value, the entire enquiry
report and the findings there of holding my husband guilty of the charges is perverse and
violates principles of natural justice. Though on 9.6.2014, my husband had represented to
not further proceed with the enquiry scheduled to be held on 11.06.2014 as it would not be
permissible on his part to acquiesce either to the jurisdiction of the MD of OSCB as his
disciplinary authority or Enquiry Officer appointed by him during pendency of the writ

3
 filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa challenging the unauthorised disciplinary
proceedings drawn against him. But on 11.06.2014 the enquiry officer under the dictate of
authorities of OSCB had set the delinquent ex parte and conducted the enquiry in his
absence illegally, which he should have adjourned to another date to give him opportunity
and enable him to participate in the enquiry thereafter following the cardinal principles of
natural justice. The omission to do this is a serious error committed by the enquiry
authority. The enquiry officer had miserably failed to examine the veracity of the alleged
charges by proving the irregularities contained in the NABARD inspection report and
Special Audit report without verifying any primary documents and relevant files basing
upon which the inspection report, special audit report and charge memo are supposed to
have been prepared. Even in absence of the delinquent official, the enquiry officer should
have unbiasedly seen whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges
are proved against the delinquent. But in the case of my husband, the enquiry officer being
gained over by Sri T. K. Panda, the then Managing Director of OSCB, had manufactured
a perverse enquiry report behind the back of the delinquent holding him guilty of all
charges as practiced in a “Kangaroo Court”.
2. That, my husband Shri Satyanaryan Panda while working as Deputy General Manager
(DGM) in OSCB had been posted as CEO (Secretary) of various Central Cooperative
banks like Banki CCB, Balasore-Bhadrak DCCB, Sambalpur DCCB and Cuttack CCB and
was instrumental in turning around those banks to vibrant and viable financial institutions.
During his tenure, Banki CCB became the first CCB of the state to be computerized during
the year 2003 which was inaugurated by the then Cooperation Minister. Due to his
relentless effort, Banki CCB bagged best performance award in the year 2002-03 and 2003-
04 under his leadership from Hon’ble Chief Minister. Similarly, during his tenure the Head
office and all branches of Balasore-Bhadrak CCB was fully computerized in the first year
of his tenure i.e. in the year 2004-05 under his guidance. Under his leadership, Balasore-
Bhadrak CCB became the highest profit making DCCB in the state and was licensed by
RBI along with OSCB much before the licensing norms of RBI was liberalised for StCBs
and DCCBs. Consecutively for three years, Balasore-Bhadrak CCB bagged the best
performance award in the year 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 from the Hon’ble under his
leadership. Records would reveal that during the tenure of my husband, Banki CCB and

4
 Balasore-Bhadrak CCB were continuously being adjudged as best performing DCCBs
among the 17 DCCBs of the State in the monthly performance rating system introduced by
the then Managing Director of OSCB Sri Sanjeev Chopra IAS due to his outstanding
Banking and supervisory skills.
3. That, during 2009, while he was working as DGM (Credit & Investment) in the Head office
of OSCB, Sri Tushar Kanti panda, the then Managing Director I/C of the Bank (OSCB)
continuously tried to persuade him to recommend a high value loan file of an ineligible
self-help Cooperative named OHFDC Ltd., formed by some of the then Directors of the
Bank with a view to gain over them for his confirmation in the post of Managing Director
of OSCB. On his recommendation he would have been able to provide financial assistance
of Rs.10 Crores to the Self Help Cooperative. But, on scrutiny of the loan file, he observed
that Smt. Sasmita Raiguru, Smt. Narmada Mohanty, and Sri Parsuram Garnaik, who are
directors of the said Self Help Cooperative are also directors of OSCB and they have
participated in the loan sub-committee meeting of OSCB as members in which decision
had been taken for loan accommodation of Rs 10.00 Cr to the said Self Help Cooperative.
Since the matter attracted conflicting of interest and violated the Dos and Don’ts guidelines
of NABARD, he questioned the above anomaly and eligibility of the said Self Help
Cooperative to become member of OSCB to get loan from the Bank in view of provisions
of Clause No 4 (10) Orissa Self Help Cooperative Act (OSHC) 2001. As per provisions of
the OSHC Act, Membership of Self Help Cooperatives registered under OSHC Act’ 2001
in Central and Apex Societies shall cease after completion of one year unless such Central
/ Apex Society too is registered as secondary Cooperative under OSHC Act’ 2001. Basing
on his file note, clarification was sought from NABARD regarding financing to the said
Self Help Cooperative. Ultimately NABARD in consultation with RBI directed OSCB not
to venture in to such financing. Due to his above mentioned objection to the financial
accommodation intended to be provided to the ineligible Self Help Cooperative which was
formed by directors of the Bank, Sri Tushar Kanti Panda, vindictively transferred and
posted him as Secretary of Sambalpur D.C.C.B. vide order No.8894 dt 08.01.2010. In the
said order he was forcibly transferred on deputation to Sambalpur DCCB barely after one
year of his continuance in OSCB and he was unlawfully relieved from his duty w.e.f.
09.01.2010 (Saturday) in the same order with instruction to join in the new place of posting

5
 on 11.01,2010 (Monday) without availing transit. It clearly establishes the vindictive
action, bias, prejudice and mala fide intention of the then Managing Director Sri Tushar
Kanti Panda against my husband.

4. That, he worked in Sambalpur D.C.C.B. for about 1(one) year 5 months and then again he
was transferred and posted as Chief Executive of Cuttack Central Cooperative Bank vide
order No. 1516 dated 13.06.2011 and again, after completion of 1 ½ years in Cuttack
Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. he was posted as Secretary of Balasore-Bhadrak C.C.B.
Ltd. violating the transfer policy of OSCB to harass and humiliate him.
5. That, when my husband assumed the post of CEO (Secretary) of Cuttack CCB on
23.06.2011, the Bank was sinking and was in the verge of collapse. Accumulated loss of
the CCB stood at a staggering amount of Rs. 39 crores due to mismanagement of funds and
HO of Cuttack CCB was yet to be computerized though all CCBs had computerised their
operation since long. The computerization of all the Branches were in shambles. Outside
data entry operators were illegally engaged in all Branches and were handing computerized
customer service having unauthorised access to customer’s sensitive data since most of the
Bank employees were not having requisite skill to operate computers to provide customer
service to the clients in a Total Bank Automation (TBA) environment. The CRAR (Capital
to Risk Asset Ratio) of the bank was negative i.e. -1.72% and the net worth of the Bank
was in also negative i. e. (--) Rs 9.85 Cr. Due to his relentless effort and Banking expertise,
Cuttack CCB achieved tremendous growth during his tenure. The bank was licensed by
RBI and the staggering accumulated loss was brought down from Rs. 39 crores to Rs. 21.72
crores earning a profit of Rs 6.02 crores and Rs 11.24 crores during the year 2011-12 and
2012-13 respectively. As on 31.03.2013, the net worth of the Bank was enhanced to + Rs
92.75 Cr and the CRAR of the Bank reached +10.10% due to the able leadership and
Banking expertise of my husband. Vigorous effort was made by him to upscale computer
and banking skills of employees of the Bank by holding regular training programmes. The
services of more than fifty outside data entry operators illegally deployed in various
Branches in unauthorized manner were dispensed with after joining of my husband which
had caused lot of heart burning and invited wrath of the vested interest. By holding regular
in house training programmes on operation of the TBA software package installed in the

6
 Bank, all the staff were trained to handle the customer service of the Bank without
depending on outsiders. Computerization of HO of the Branches of CCCB was completed
and stabilised. The NABARD Inspection team had highly acclaimed performance of my
husband and recommended for his continuance in Cuttack CCB to RCS (O) with a degree
of freedom vis-à-vis the board subject to proper monitoring of RCS (O) and OSCB which
would be evident from the statutory inspection report of Cuttack CCB for the year 2010-
11 and 2011-12. Even NABARD had then written a letter to RCS on the matter.
6. That, when the matter stood thus, he was once again transferred to Balasore-Bhadrak
DCCB as CEO (Secretary). While working as CEO of Balasore-Bhadrak DCCB the then
MD of OSCB, Sri T.K.Panda issued letter no. 3850 dated 30.10.2013 referring his previous
letter no. 3044 dated 14.09.2013 enclosing updated PAR rules of OSCB. Surprisingly in
the said updated PAR (Performance Appraisal Report) rules, it was incorporated that non-
submission of self-PAR will tantamount to major misconduct under rule 33(XVI) of the
staff service rules of OSCB debarring promotion of the concerned employee to the next
higher grade. It is humbly submitted that the said unauthorized amendment of the PAR rule
of OSCB was made with retrospective effect by adopting resolution of the then
Management in-Charge (MIC) of the Bank without any lawful amendment of the relevant
provisions of the staff service rule of OSCB by RCS (O) under Section 33-A of OCS Act
1962, with the sole intention of debarring my husband from promotion to the rank of
General Manager (GM) which was long since due to him. It is pertinent to mention that Sri
T.K.Panda ex-MD of OSCB who has communicated the said revised PAR rule amended
in unauthorized manner on 30.10.2013 was due for superannuation attaining the age of 58
years the next day i e. on 31.10.2013 as per provisions of staff service rule framed by RCS
(O) in exercise of his statutory powers. Since Sri T.K.Panda was illegally holding the post
of MD of OSCB by gaining over the then MIC of the bank w.e.f 1.11.2013 violating the
statutory order No.21098 dated 1.10.2010 of RCS (O) prohibiting extension of service of
employees of all Cooperative Societies beyond the age of superannuation, provisions of
OSCB staff service rule No. 42 and Sec-28(1)(a)(Viii) and Sec 33-A of OCS Act,11962,
finding no other way my husband challenged the above illegal action of the authorities of
OSCB by filing a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha in WP(C)-26523
of 2013. It was mentioned in the said writ application about the illegal continuance of Sri

7
 T.K.Panda as MD of OSCB after attaining the age of retirement prescribed under the staff
service rules. The Hon’ble High Court of Odisha on 03.01.2014 passed orders that no
coercive action shall be taken against my husband regarding the said amended PAR rules.
The writ petition is pending final disposal.
7. Since my husband had challenged the PAR rules before the Honorable High Court of
Odisha disclosing about the unauthorized continuance of Sri T.K.Panda as MD of OSCB,
he became vindictive and initiated a disciplinary proceeding against my husband vide letter
No.6369 dated 30.1.2014 without any authority and jurisdiction indicating various
fabricated and false charges against him. On the date of issue of the disciplinary proceeding
Sri T.K.Panda had already attained the age of superannuation since 31.10.2013 and was
continuing as MD of OSCB by gaining over the MIC of the bank without statutory approval
of RCS (O) extending his service w.e.f. 1.11.2013. Sri T.K.Panda was then a functus
officio having no locus standi to continue in service and hold the post of MD as per
provisions of law for which the disciplinary proceeding drawn against my husband was
vitiated and bad in law.
8. In this case the disciplinary proceeding was issued by the MD of the Bank Sri T.K.Panda
who was holding the post of MD of OSCB in an unauthorized manner after his retirement
age i.e. 58 years on 31.10.2013. The RCS (O) has never approved his extension of service
with effect from 01.11.2013 in exercise of his power under OCS Act. Further, RCS (O)
vide order no. 19825 dated 31.10.2014 in exercise of his statutory powers under Sec-33-
A of OCS act 1962 revised the retirement age of employees of OSCB from 58 years to 60
years with immediate effect. Moreover the Hon’ble High Court in WPC 1397/2014, in the
case of Prasanta Kumar Nayak, (an employee of Keonjhar CCB) versus State of Odisha
had already held on 27.01.2015 that order No. 19825 dated 31.10.2014 passed by RCS (O)
revising the retirement age of employees of OSCB, DCCB’s and PACS would apply
prospectively and not retrospectively as nothing has been stated to be applied
retrospectively in the order itself. Similarly in WPC No. 14957 of 2014, in case of Sukanta
Chandra Mohanty vs State of Odisha, the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha had held on
31.03.2015 that:
“XXXXXX this court in Raghunath Das vs State of Odisha (WPC No. 20381 of 2014
disposed of on 12.11.2014) has already decided that the resolution of the

8
 government will apply prospectively. Therefore the said benefit cannot be extended
to the petitioner even though the proposal was sent by the Society while he was
continuing in service. Mere Submission of proposal by the society while petitioner
was in service doesn’t confer any right on him to claim continuity till he attains the
age of 60 years. The proposal requires approval by the competent authority under
Section 33-A of the act, 1962. The same having being done much after the age of
superannuation of the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of
continuance of service till he attains the age of 60 years.”
From the above judgments of the Hon’ble High Court, it would be clearly established that
continuance of Sri T.K.Panda w.e.f 1.11.2013 after his retirement age of 58 years on
31.10.2013 is unauthorized and illegal in the eyes of law for which he was not having any
locus standi as MD of OSCB w.e.f from 1.11.2013. Accordingly, all his actions on and
after 01.11.2013 as MD of OSCB is unsustainable under law. Hence, the disciplinary
proceeding initiated by Sri T.K.Panda as MD OSCB against my husband is null and void
and non est in the eyes of law.
9. Further, as per settled principles of law the disciplinary proceeding is required to be
approved and issued by the appointing/disciplinary authority or any authority superior to
the appointing authority/disciplinary authority on proper application of mind. It is
submitted that in case of my husband, principle of natural justice was violated as the charge
memo was not approved and issued by the appointing authority/disciplinary authority i.e.
the appointment committee of the bank consisting of (1) President—Chairman, (2) RCS-
-Member, (3) MD, OSCB—Member Convenor. As per OSCB staff service rule No.5 (1)
(C), DGM is categorized as officer grade-I. The appointment committee of OSCB is the
appointing authority of officer grade-I under rule 6(c) (i) of OSCB staff service rule and is
also the competent disciplinary authority for officer grade-I employed in OSCB. Since the
charge sheet bearing letter No.. 6369 dated 30.01.2014 was issued by the Managing
Director, who is neither the disciplinary authority nor the appointing authority for officer
grade-I (DGM) as prescribed in the staff service rules of the Bank, is without authority of
law and jurisdiction, therefore non est in the eyes of law. Moreover, the article of charges
having not been finalized upon approval by the disciplinary authority/appointing authority
on proper application of mind is null and void and the same having not been initiated by

9
 the appointing authority or by an officer not sub-ordinate to the appointing authority is
inconsistent with provisions of article 311 of the constitution of India for which the same
is nullity in the eye of law.
10. The resolution of the MIC taken at the behest of the MD of the bank by putting back date
on 20.09.2013 authorizing the MD to initiate disciplinary proceeding against employees
up to the rank of GM based on findings of enquiry, audit and special audit was manipulated
and after thought to cover up the illegality committed in case of initiation of disciplinary
proceeding against my husband and such an authorization is unconstitutional,
unauthorised, bad in law and violates the principles of natural justice and provisions of
staff service rules of OSCB framed by RCS (O). During the relevant period, the
Management of all Cooperative Societies of the State was vesting with Registrar of
Cooperative Societies as per direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and RCS had
fixed local limit of Commissioner-cum-Secretary Cooperation as Addl. RCS for Orissa
State Cooperative Bank to function as Registrar of OSCB who was subject to control and
superintendence of RCS. The MIC of OSCB being a delegate of RCS has no power to sub-
delegate his power of initiating disciplinary action to the Managing Director without
amendment of staff service rules of OSCB by RCS. Hence the authorization of MIC to MD
OSCB to initiate disciplinary action against employees up to the rank of GM is unlawful
and unauthorised for which the charge sheet drawn against my husband by MD OSCB with
the plea of being authorised by Management is unsustainable and bad in law. As per the
constitutional frame work, all disciplinary proceedings are required to be initiated by the
appointing authority or any authority not sub-ordinate to the appointing authority. Hence,
in case of DGM’s of OSCB who are categorized as officer grade-I, the Managing Director
of the Bank has neither jurisdiction nor authority to draw such disciplinary proceeding
without approval of the charge sheet by the appointment committee i.e. the appointing
authority. Hence, the unauthorized charge sheet issued by the MD of OSCB without
jurisdiction bearing letter no. 6369 dated 30.01.2014 is vitiated, illegal and nullity. The
Honorable Supreme Court of India, in Civil Appeal no. 7761 of 2013 in the case of Union
of India and others versus B.V.Gopinath has held that:
“XXXXXX 49. Although number of collateral issues have been raised by the learned
counsel for the appellants as well the respondents, we deem it appropriate not to

10
 opine on the same in view of the conclusion that the charge sheet/ charge memo
having not been approved by the disciplinary authority was non est in the eyes of
law.”
11. That, during the tenure of my husband as Secretary of CCB being an officer Grade-I of
OSCB his service was then regulated as a ‘Key-Personnel’ under rule 5(1)(l) of the staff
service rule of the Bank. As per annexure ‘G’ of the staff service rule of OSCB “ The
common cadre of key personnel of CCB’s and Odisha State cooperative Bank rules
1981” was framed by RCS (O) in exercise of statutory power conferred under OCS Act
1962. As per the said rule No. 3(e) of chapter VI of annexure ‘G’ of the staff service rule,
the president of the concerned Central Cooperative bank shall have power to initiate
disciplinary proceeding and call for explanation to the key personnel under employment
of the Central Bank. In the event, he (president) isn’t satisfied with the explanation he shall
report the matter to MD of OSCB for taking disciplinary action by the competent authority.
In view of the above provisions of the staff service rule of OSCB, the president of the
concerned CCB i.e. Cuttack Central Cooperative Bank was only competent to initiate
disciplinary proceeding against my husband being a key personnel employed as Secretary
of Cuttack CCB pertaining to the alleged discrepancies committed if any by him in Cuttack
CCB. Hence, the disciplinary proceeding initiated by the MD of OSCB on 30.01.2014
against my husband pertaining to his alleged misdemeanours committed in Cuttack CCB
on the basis of observations made in NABARD Inspection Report and Special Audit Report
of Cuttack CCB is without authority and jurisdiction as per provisions of staff service rules
of the Bank and non est in the eyes of law. It is an outcome of malafide, vindictive and
colorful exercise of power in the hands of the then MD of OSCB, Sri T.K.Panda to remove
my husband from Service.
12. All the charges levelled against my husband in the face of it are vague and have been
framed with oblique motive to dismiss him from service. Neither the copy of relevant
documents and nor the extracts of concerned files, copy of the NABARD Inspection Report
and copy of Special Audit Report of Cuttack CCB was furnished to my husband basing on
which the alleged charge sheet had been framed. Since, neither copy of a statement of
imputations of misconduct in support of each article of charge, nor list of documents by
which and list of witnesses by whom the article of charges are proposed to be sustained

11
 were furnished along with the charge sheet, the entire disciplinary proceeding became
vitiated as it violated the principles of natural justice.
13. Though the performance of my husband in Cuttack CCB was outstanding and NABARD
had recommended for his further continuance with a degree of freedom vis-à-vis the
managing committee. But surprisingly, after his transfer from Cuttack CCB being
influenced by MD OSCB the NABARD Inspecting Officers incorporated certain baseless
observations against my husband in the Statutory Inspection Report of Cuttack CCB for
the year 2012-13 without any substance.
14. That, in the previous inspection report of Cuttack CCB for the year 2011-12 the IO’s of
NABARD had wrongly calculated CRAR of the bank as 5.6% treating imbalance of Rs
34.33 Cr towards loss violating circular guidelines of Head office of NABARD and
wrongly reduced the net worth of the bank to Rs 4164.86 Lakhs. The CRAR of the bank
was intentionally kept below the prescribed level of 7% required then to meet the ‘Capacity
to Pay’ criteria prescribed by RCS (O)/NABARD for releasing financial benefits i.e. D.A,
etc. to the employees of the bank. Being the CEO, my husband had rightfully represented
before NABARD against such incorrect calculation of CRAR and net worth of the bank to
protect the interest of the employees and other stake holders vide letter no. 5426 dated
27.09.2012. The Inspection Department of Head office (DOS) of NABARD deputed an
officer from their Mumbai Head office to re-examine the matter and upon his findings, the
Inspection Report (IR) of Cuttack CCB for the year 2011-12 was revised and a
corrigendum was issued enhancing the CRAR of Bank to 9.2% and net worth to Rs
7597.64. Since deficiencies of the NABARD, IO was exposed in the above incidence, he
kept a grudge on my husband and the same officer was again associated in statutory
Inspection of Cuttack CCB for the year 2012-13 and made a number mis-representation of
facts intentionally against my husband being influenced by MD of OSCB who was
prejudiced and intolerant towards my husband for his successive turning around of weak
DCCB’s to strong, viable and vibrant financial organizations. Some of his lawful and bona-
fide decisions were intentionally held as illegal with malicious attitude. Even his lawful
actions taken with the approval of RCS (O) who was the then MIC of Cuttack CCB were
colored as illegal and unauthorised without any scant regard for provisions of OCS Act and
Rules.

12
15. The entire exercise of Inspection of Cuttack CCB for the year 2012-13 was conducted
behind the back of my husband without affording him any opportunity to explain his stand.
Though the bank had submitted a detailed compliance on all the observations made in the
said Inspection Report by justifying the actions of my husband as CEO overruling the
objections raised in the said Inspection Report by the IO’s of NABARD after thorough and
detailed discussion and approval in the meeting of the Collector & District Magistrate-
cum-MIC of Cuttack CCB on 06.12.2013, a special audit was ordered against my husband
in undue haste with the sole intention of maligning him and subjecting him to disciplinary
proceeding with ulterior motive to punish him at any cost.
16. Revision of the statutory NABARD Inspection report of Cuttack CCB for the year 2011-
12 would make it evident that the Inspection reports of NABARD though statutory in
nature are never flawless sacrosanct and may contain wrong information and observation
for which it needs to be thoroughly examined before initiating any disciplinary proceeding
against the CEO and other office bearers basing on the observations contained in the report.
It can never be taken as a conclusive evidence in a disciplinary proceeding without a
thorough and unbiased probing of the contents of the findings. Hence, initiating
disciplinary action against my husband on the basis of baseless and perfunctory
observations and findings of the Inspecting officers of NABARD by MD of OSCB without
examining the facts and affording reasonable opportunity to my husband to explain his
stand was malicious, vindictive and not sustainable in the eyes of law.
17. I would like to submit that since the Inspection Report contained certain observations
against my husband, Sri T.K.Panda the then MD of OSCB took it as a great opportunity to
harass and humiliate him by initiating a disciplinary proceeding against him which was
premature at that stage with the sole intention of dismissing him from service at any cost.
He connived with the then MIC of OSCB who was incidentally also then the
Commissioner-cum-Secretary of Department of Cooperation, Government of Odisha, to
punish my husband by hook or by crook. At the instance of Sri T.K.Panda, the then MD of
OSCB, the Secretary Cooperation who was also the MIC of OSCB instructed AGCS vide
letter no. 6954 dated 24.08.2013 to conduct special audit of Cuttack CCB pertaining to the
tenure of my husband to harass him. Since the Audit Directorate functions under the direct
control of Secretary Cooperation who was also then the MIC of OSCB, Sri T.K.Panda, the

13
 then MD of OSCB succeeded in obtaining a special audit report against my husband in
collusion with the auditors. On the basis of the alleged NABARD IR and some anonymous
and pseudonymous petition, a special audit of Cuttack CCB was conducted against my
husband at the behest of Sri T.K.Panda the then MD of OSCB violating GA Department
circular 20331 dated 21.07.2008 (which prohibits any action on anonymous and
pseudonymous petitions) without waiting for the compliance report submitted by Cuttack
CCB on the said Inspection report with the sole intention of incorporating false, baseless
and fabricated observations against him in the Special audit report.
18. It is submitted that AGCS vide letter number 6098 dated 31.10.2013 had ordered to conduct
Special Audit of Cuttack CCB as per circular guidelines of RCS (O), AGCS and byelaws
of the Bank with specific instruction to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to
the delinquent. Surprisingly, the Special Audit was conducted behind his back without
issuing him any summon and half margin memo by the auditors in course of Special Audit
violating circular guidelines of AGCS issued in letter No. 6964 dated 01.09.2006. In the
said circular, AGCS Odisha has categorically instructed that the Auditor is bound to quote
the relevant provisions of OCS Act, rules and Bye-laws of the society violated by the
officers or office bearers held liable by the Auditor in the Audit Reports. As per provision
of the said circular, it is incumbent upon the Auditors conducting special Audit to serve
half-margin memo and summons to the person’s held liable where they are suggesting
recovery in terms of money or property belonging to the society as per principle of natural
justice, since they are depriving the concerned persons of their right to property to the
extent of recovery suggested. If the explanation or plea of the concerned officer or office
bearer do not appear convincing, the auditors may suggest recovery giving adequate
justification. In support of their suggestion, they should categorically indicate in the Audit
report that half margin memo/summon to the person held liable to explain his stand and
the responsibility was fixed as he didn’t respond or his explanation was not found
satisfactory. It was further been mentioned in the said circular of AGCS that service of
summon to the present CEO or present Management on behalf of the liable person isn’t
sufficient service. Summons/half margin memos should be served on the liable persons and
the service should be as per OCS Rule 150 (3). In the case of my husband, neither any half
margin memo nor any Summon was issued by Special Auditors of Cuttack CCB on him

14
pertaining to the transactions of Cuttack CCB held under objection. The entire exercise of
Special Audit was conducted behind his back with oblique motive to fix liability on him at
any cost. Nowhere in the Special Audit Report, it has been mentioned about service of half
margin memo and Summon to my husband and non-submission/un-satisfactory submission
of clarification by him upon service of the half-margin memo/summon. Further, no
mention has been made in the Audit Report about violation of Specific provision of OCS
Act and Rules and Bye-laws of Cuttack CCB and violation of any circulars of RCS (O),
RBI, NABARD, and AGCS by him. In absence of the above, fixing responsibility on my
husband for recovery is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. The observations made in the
Special Audit Report in absence of any specific mention of violation of provisions OCS
Act, Rules and Circulars of statutory authorities, the recovery shown in the Special Audit
Report is bad in law and not sustainable for which the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha has
stayed the Surcharge proceeding drawn against my husband. In WPC No. 4353 of 2010 in
the case of Gadadhara Parida vs State of Odisha the Hon’ble Orissa High Court had held
on 27-07-2010 that:
“XXXXXXXXX 13. Regard being had to the nature of the special audit conducted
and duties assigned to be discharged by the petitioners in their official capacities,
we feel inclined to observe here that wisdom of the auditor in the special audit
report should not be made the basis of any disciplinary action against the
petitioners without affording them proper opportunity to explain their conduct.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ”.
Further the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Service Bench No. 16858 of 2016 in the case
of State of U.P. And Ors vs Netrapal Sharma and Another had held on 26.7.2016 that:
“xxxxxxxxx. All these points were not considered by the Disciplinary authority who
passed the punishment order only on the basis of Audit report which is not a
substantive piece of evidence, unless it is proved in accordance with law.”
Moreover, in Dilip Singh Rana vs. State of U.P.1994, ALJ 580, it has been held by the
Hon'ble Allahabad High Court that audit report is not a substantive piece of evidence,
unless it is proved in accordance with law. Moreover the Government in G. A. Department
vide letter No. 12448 Dt. 21.05.2004 had issued exhaustive guidelines on detail

15
 examination of Audit report before drawal of disciplinary proceedings. The circular reads
as:
“XXXXXXXX. The departments or authorities are first required to furnish copies
of audit reports to the concerned officers for their detailed compliance so that they
have an opportunity to state their case based on the office records. After their
compliance reports are received, the same are required to be examined by the
concerned departments along with the compliance reports of the incumbents who
are holding the concerned office/positions. If the administrative departments are
satisfied after detailed scrutiny of the audit report that draft charges are to be
framed against the concerned officers on the issues arising from the audit paras,
draft charges may be prepared and sent to this department for further action.
XXXXXXXX Unless the officers who are held responsible in the audit reports for
acts of commissions and omissions are given an opportunity to clarify the position
to the departmental authority, it may not be desirable to hold them responsible
merely on the audit observations . XXXXXXXX Therefore, unless the audit reports
are examined by the departmental authorities through the assistance of Senior
Officers and the F.A/A.F.A, the concerned officers may not have been treated
fairly.”
19. In view of the above, the entire disciplinary action taken against my husband basing on the
Special Audit Report of Cuttack CCB without affording him any opportunity to explain his
stand on the omissions and commissions alleged in the said report before drawing the
disciplinary proceedings is nullity, vitiated and bad in law. The enquiry report submitted
by the enquiry officer proving all the charges against my husband treating the special audit
report and NABARD inspection report which were never proved as per law as substantive
evidence in the Disciplinary Proceeding is perverse and not sustainable under law. The
Disciplinary Authority had committed grave error in acting upon a disciplinary proceeding
drawn against my husband without authority and jurisdiction and findings of the enquiry
report of the enquiry officer who had conducted the enquiry without any semblance of
procedure. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with
law, subsequent proceedings would not sanctify the same meaning thereby, in case a
foundation is removed, the superstructure falls. The disciplinary proceeding having being

16
 initiated without authority and jurisdiction and the enquiry report being perverse, the
punishment of dismissal awarded to my husband is illegal and liable to be set aside by
intervention your good office.

20. The various articles of Charges in the said unauthorised Charge-sheet issued to my husband
is explained hereunder in seriatim.

20.1 That, as regards to charge No.1 it was alleged that my husband had dropped a
number of disciplinary proceedings against the employees of Cuttack C.C.B. but no
such list was furnished except one case of Niranjan Panda an employee of the said
Bank without furnishing any detail particulars alleging the said charge. As far as I
know, Niranjan Panda had challenged the disciplinary proceeding in the Hon’ble High
Court and got a Stay Order. My husband’s predecessor, Sri B.P. Mohanty, the then
Secretary of Cuttack CCB, submitted proposal to reinstate Sri Niranjan Panda on
obtaining legal opinion on 11.06.2011 to the President of Cuttack C.C.B. After my
husband joined, the file of Niranjan Panda was placed before him with the legal
opinion of Sri K.P. Nanda Advocate of the Bank. My husband had simply endorsed
the file to the President of Cuttack C.C.B. without offering any specific view on the
matter, who passed order on 21.08.2011 to reinstate Niranjan Panda, which was carried
out, pending final decision of the High Court case. As per provisions of the staff service
Rules and Bye-laws of Cuttack CCB, Secretary, is competent to impose punishment
for minor misconducts. Hence, if any employee would not be found guilty for award
of major punishment in the enquiry report, the Secretary/Chief Executive shall be
competent to drop the proceeding or award punishment for minor misconduct as the
case may be. The management of Cuttack CCB in its meeting held on 6.12.2013 had
approved the compliance report on all the above baseless observations pointed out in
the NABARD inspection report after threadbare discussion justifying the actions taken
during my husband’s tenure. Hence the charge leveled against my husband is vague,
baseless and bad in law.
20.2 That as regards to charge No.2, it was alleged that number of junior supervisors of
Cuttack C.C.B. were reinstated by my husband without approval of the competent

17
 authority. But no detail particular were given to my husband basing on which he would
have been able to answer. To his knowledge, he had never reinstated any staff without
authority but which he had made within his competency following the service rule and
byelaws of the Cuttack C.C.B. The management of Cuttack CCB in its compliance
report of the NABARD inspection report had justified his actions on the above matter.
Hence the charge is baseless and not sustainable.
20.3 That, as regards to charge No.3, it was alleged he had paid arrear salary to 19
employees of the Bank(Junior Supervisor) but no details were furnished in that regard.
To my knowledge the cadre secretaries renamed as Junior Supervisor were all declared
Bank staff by the Order of R.C.S. Odisha No. 6929, dated 13.06.2003. His predecessor
also inducted 16 Nos. of cadre secretaries as employees of the Bank w.e.f. 20.02.2003.
The fitment of the pay of the employees was done by the General Manager of the Bank
from time to time. His predecessor had made payment of the arrear salaries of
substantial number of employees except 19 employees whose salary Bills were not
placed before him and after my husband’s joining the salary bills of the said 19
employees were prepared through a computer generated pay bill software system of
the Bank, scrutinized, checked and recommended by staff of computer Cell, Manager
(Estt), Manager (Accounts), System Analyst (Computer), GM and finally placed
before him for approval. Accordingly, my husband approved the same following the
service rules as amended from time to time by the R.C.S. Odisha as per
recommendation of the other officers of the Bank. Be it stated here that no board
resolution was made prohibiting the said specific 19 employees to my husband’s
knowledge before his joining. The resolution in question not to pay any arrear to junior
supervisors was never brought to the notice of my husband by any of the subordinate
officers dealing in the matter. Since State Government and RCS (O) has declared the
Grade VI (A) staff as deemed employee of the Central cooperative Banks
w.e.f.20.02.2003 through statutory notifications under section 33-A and 123-A of the
OCS Act which had already been accepted by the Management of Cuttack CCB, no
illegality was committed on the matter being unaware of the resolution adopted by the
management prior to his joining in the Bank. The arrear pay bill of some employees
were passed by my husband on recommendations of responsible officers of Cuttack

18
 following the service condition prescribed by RCS (O) with regard to medical and HR
allowance etc. If any payment supposed have been allowed to staff violating the
provisions of rule should have been recovered from the concerned employees rather
than showing recovery from the CEO and fixing responsibility on him for the said
action. More over the management of Cuttack CCB vide resolution No.5 dated
9.12.2015 have resolved to pay arrear salary dues to Grade VI (A) staff from the date
they were declared as Bank staff i.e. w.e.f 20.02.2003. Since the Management of
Cuttack CCB have duly complied the above matter in their compliance report
submitted on the NABARD Inspection report the charge is not sustainable.
20.4 That, as regards to charge No.4, the allegation that during the year 2012-13, that
my husband had parked excess funds in Banks including Private Sector Banks to the
tune of Rs.57.00 Crores in non-interest bearing Current Account for which Cuttack
CCB was put to huge loss as assessed by the inspection team NABARD and assessed
by the Auditor conducting special Audit and my husband had failed to respond to letter
No. OSCB/FAD/12166, Dated 20.03.2012 and subsequent reminder bearing letter no.
OSCB/GAD/12288/2011-12 dated 26.03.2012 asking to furnish the certified statement
of Accounts maintained with other banks (other than OSCB), to OSCB for analysis.
Strangely neither copy of NABARD inspection report and Special Audit report were
furnished with the charge memo nor the extract of the same were communicated to
him. Further, copies of the letters referred in the charge sheet were also not supplied
with the charge memo. The charges are vague, baseless and concocted. It is submitted
that the area of operation of Cuttack CCB extends to the whole undivided erstwhile
Cuttack district covering 41 Blocks in Cuttack, Jajpur, Kendrapada and Jagatsinghpur
district and the CCCB is operating its business through 38 Branches and 468 PACS.
To meet the day to day cash requirement of loanees and depositors of 38 Branches and
468 PACS, the Management of Cuttack CCB had opened current account with various
Banks other than OSCB prior to my husband’s joining to meet their daily physical
requirement of cash. Since, RBI had neither permitted OSCB nor Cuttack CCB to set
up own currency chest, to meet the huge requirement of physical cash of depositors
and loanees of the 38 Branches and 468 PACS, apart from cash requirement of
5,60,000 KCC borrowers and paddy procurement dues of lakhs of farmers of the 468

19
affiliated PACS, the Bank was heavily dependent on Banks like IDBI and Axis Bank
for providing physical cash dispensation facility to Branches located in rural areas of
the above mentioned 41 Blocks through their (IDBI and Axis Bank) own man power
and vehicle in which lot of security risk is involved due to reluctance of SBI and other
Banks to provide such facility on daily basis. Further, u/s 18 B.R. Act’1949 (AACS)
minimum CRR (Cash Reserve Ratio) of 3% is prescribed and no optimum limit for
the same has also not been fixed either in the B.R. Act, 1949 (AACS) or by any
statutory authority. Neither there is any provision in B.R.Act,1949 (AACS) for
showing interest loss for maintenance of CRR above the minimum prescribed level
nor there is any instruction from R.B.I. to show interest recoverable on excess cash
reserve maintained above minimum 3%. Moreover, the individual member borrowing
power (IMBP) of Kisan card holders was enhanced from Rs.1, 00,000/- to Rs.3,
00,000/- during the tenure of my husband by RCS for which requirement of cash for
disbursement of KCC loan to farmers at Branch/PACS level for agricultural finance
increased almost three times. The PACS under Cuttack C.C.B. had mobilized deposit
of around Rs.275.00 Crores and it is also the duty of Cuttack C.C.B. to provide them
timely cash to meet their depositors demand failing which reputation of the Bank as
well as PACS would have been adversely affected before the general public. That
apart, for payment of paddy procurement dues, OSCSC had provided around
Rs.340.00 Cr to Cuttack CCB during 2012-13 which were parked in various Banks for
remittance to PACS for paddy procurement dues of farmers. Such placement should
have been reckoned beyond the CRR and cash/Bank balance stipulation as the Bank
was duty bound to ensure timely and prompt payment of paddy procurement dues of
small and marginal farmers who are selling their surplus paddy to OSCSC through
PACS as per State Government programme. Balance in current account of ICICI Bank
and Axis Bank is not reckoned towards CRR as per R.B.I. guidelines and there is
neither any concealment nor any dishonesty in the matter. The above deposits were
maintained for the interest of the Cuttack CCB and its constituents and no illegally was
committed in the matter. The R.B.I. vide letter No.13352, dated 6.6.2014 addressed
to Sri B.P. Mohanty has clarified that in terms of Sec. 18(1) of B.R. Act, 1949(AACS)
no maximum limit of CRR has been prescribed for CCBs and all the 17 CCBs of the

20
State had maintained CRR above 3% of their DTL during 2012-13 and 2013-14. The
observation of the auditor against my husband showing recovery is prejudiced,
arbitrary and not backed by any provision of law. The Current Account in ICICI Bank
was opened as per resolution of the management of Cuttack CCB for undertaking
multicity Demand Draft business by issuing at par cheques of ICICI Bank. From the
above business, the Cuttack CCB had earned huge amount of Commission during
2012-13 and from 01.04.13 to 31.09.13. The cost free paddy procurement money
placed with the Bank by OSCSC is parked with Axis Bank and IDBI Bank for free
delivery of physical cash in various rural branches for payment of paddy procurement
dues of farmers of various PACS as State Bank of India and other commercial banks
were neither willing nor capable to provide such free cash remittance facility to the
Bank at their own cost and security. The Bank earned sizeable commission out of
paddy procurement business. Taking in to consideration the above, the RCS, Odisha,
who was Management-in-charge of the Cuttack CCB during the period had reviewed
the matter and approved the excess Cash and Bank Balance above the minimum CRR
requirement of 3% in its meeting vide resolution No. 4 on 30.11.2012. Further, the
management of Cuttack CCB in its meeting held on 6.12.2013 had approved the
compliance report on this defect point out in the NABARD inspection report justifying
the reasons of mainting excess Cash and Bank Balance by Cuttack CCB during my
husband’s tenure. Further, RBI vide letter No.2041 dated 16.11.2016 and 2050 dated
17.11.2016 have furnished information under RTI that DCCBs were required to
maintain a minimum of 3% of their total demand and time liability as Cash Reserve
Ratio (CRR) under provisions of B.R.Act, 1949 prior to 12.07.2014 and no upper limit
was prescribed under statue or the notification issued by RBI for the same. All 17
DCCBs in Odisha had maintained CRR above 3% during 2012-13 and 2013-14.
Moreover, Cuttack CCB had maintained cash and Bank balance within the budgetary
limit approved by the Management of the Bank and concurred by Orissa State
Cooperative Bank vide their letter No.6024 dt. 20.12.2012. Since concurrence of
budget by the financial Bank is a statutory duty exercised by OSCB, it can not be said
to be done in a casual manner for which drawing disciplinary proceeding against my
husband on the charge of parking excess funds to the tune of Rs 57.00 Cr in non-

21
 interest bearing Current Accounts of Banks including Private Banks having approved
higher cash and Bank Balance in the budget is intentional harassment, prejudiced and
bad in law. Moreover, information regarding balance maintained in Current account
with other Private Banks, the same was submitted to OSCB in time by Cuttack CCB
for which there was no further correspondence on the matter after 26.03.2012. More
over, with each drawal application, the said information are submitted to OSCB by
each CCB apart from reporting the same in monthly statutory returns to
RBI/NABARD/OSCB. The charge is malicious not sustainable.
20.5 As regards charge No.5 it is submitted that neither any irregularity nor any illegality
has been committed by my husband in purchase of Personal Accident Insurance
Scheme (PAIS) Policy from Future Generali Insurance Company for KCC holders. It
is hereby stated that RBI vide letter no. RPCD.PLFS.BC.NO./1/05.05.09/2000-2001
dated 2nd July 2001, RBI has fixed Rs 15/- as annual premium per KCC holders
towards PAIS for Rs 50,000/- covering death, permanent & partial disability. Earlier,
Cuttack CCB has taken PAIS policy of Rs 50,000/- per KCC holders from Future
Generali Insurance Company covering only death at the rate of Rs 5.00 for the year
2010-11 violating RBI guidelines. During his tenure, the KCC Personal accident
insurance policy (PAIS) was taken at the rate of Rs 12.00 per KCC holder by
negotiating with the earlier insurance provider i.e., Future Generali Insurance company
covering death, permanent & partial disability obtaining approval of the President of
the Bank against the rate of Rs 15/- prescribed by RBI. The same was done as per
recommendation and suggestions of the concerned officers of Cuttack CCB and no
irregularity has been done in the matter. The earlier policy was covering only death
and not permanent and partial disability. Since, the policy has been renewed during
2012-2013 as per suggestion of the concerned officers dealing in the matter, fresh
quotation was not called for. The management of Cuttack CCB in its meeting held on
6.12.2013 had duly approved the NABARD inspection compliance report on the above
matter and justified the actions of the Bank on the score. The above charge has been
framed against him intentionally to harass and humiliate him without examining the
rate offered by other CCBs on the matter. The quotations about lower rate rate offered
by any other insurance company for all the three benefits i.e. accidental death,

22
 permanent and partial disabity was never brought in file to my husband. When some
DCCBs headed by favourite officers of T.K.Panda have purchased the said PAIS
policy @ Rs 23.00 from the same insurance company i.e. he had looked the other way
but implicated my husband vindictively. Hence the charge is not sustainable in law.
20.6 As regards charge No.6, it is humbly submitted that the charge is baseless and
vague. During the year 2011-12, the elected managing committee of Cooperative
Societies was dissolved due to amendment of OCS Act and a nominated Managing
Committee was put in place in Cuttack CCB. The same was challenged by the elected
managing committee in the Hon’ble High Court and the elected committee was
restored without any power of policy decision by High Court. The said order of High
Court was challenged before the Supreme Court for which RCS, Odisha remained in
charge of Management of Cuttack CCB. During the interlocutory period a vacuum was
created in the affairs of management of the Bank. During the period, purchase
committee consisting of officers of the Bank as mentioned in the procurement policy
of DCCBs approved by State Govt. and communicated in letter No. 1851 dated
28.06.2011 of OSCB was constituted by Secretary vide letter No.3433 dated
24.08.2011 for smooth procurement purpose. The procurement policy was
subsequently placed before the MIC of the Bank (RCS Orissa) and duly adopted and
approved. All procurements were made as per suggestion of the procurement
committee in transparent manner following the procurement policy approved by Govt.
and RCS and no illegality was committed by my husband while acting as Secretary of
Cuttack CCB on the above matter. Whatever he did, was within his power delegated
under OCS Act, Rules for which no recovery has been shown against him on such
transaction. So question of any irregularity in the matter does not arise. Further,
Management of the Bank had also authorized Secretary of the Bank to incur
expenditure within budgetary limit. Moreover, the management of Cuttack CCB in its
meeting held on 6.12.2013 had approved the compliance report on the above point
raised in the NABARD inspection report justifying his actions. So, the charge is not
substantiated.
20.7 It is humbly stated that, no maximum limit for (Cash Reserve Ratio) CRR was
prescribed by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) whereas minimum 3% CRR was prescribed

23
 for DCCBs which Cuttack CCB had complied during the tenure of my husband.
Though DCCBs like Sambalpur and Bolangir had maintained higher Bank Balance in
Current account of Private Banks in comparison to Cuttack CCB, the case of Cuttack
CCB was singled out and subjected to microscopic analysis with a view to find fault
and punish my husband. The RBI and State Govt had clarified in information supplied
by them in their letter dated 16.11.2016, 17.11.2016 and 25.11.216 obtained under RTI
Act that no optimum limit of CRR has been prescribed by RBI. Hence the accusation
of parking excess funds in current account of Banks including Private Banks is
misleading and baseless. The Cash Balance and Current Account Bank Balance of
Cuttack CCB held with different Banks including private Banks were maintained
keeping in view the Bank’s requirement as per decision of the Committee of
Management of Cuttack CCB within the budget estimate approved by the General
Body of the Bank and duly concurred by OSCB. As a follow up action to the VCR
(Vaidyanathan Committee Recommendation), NABARD vide circular No. 33/IDD -
03/2013 dated 11-02-2013 had already instructed StCBs that the environment would
not require StCBs to issue any instructions which may incapacitate the CCBs for their
independent decision making. Hence explanation called for by MD OSCB to the CEO
of Cuttack CCB with regard to submission of statement of account maintained with
other Banks is nothing but interference with the functional autonomy of DCCB to
incapacitate them for their independent decision making.
20.8 While raising objection and drawing disciplinary action against my husband for
incurring expenditure being not the competent authority for making procurements, the
statutory provisions of OCS Rule regarding the duties and responsibilities of Chief
Executive of Cooperative Societies was deliberately lost sight by the NABARD IO
and Sri T.K.Panda MD OSCB. Rule 31 (3) of OCS Rule reads “The level beyond
which an expenditure of a Society will require sanction of the Committee, shall be
such, as may be special in the Bye-Laws.” Since no specific limit has been imposed in
the Bye-Laws of Cuttack CCB on the Powers up to which the Secretary can incur
expenditure, it is well within the authority of the Chief Executive to incur expenditure
within the budgetary limit approved by Management. Further the RCS (O)-cum-
Management-in-Charge of Cuttack CCB while approving the budget estimate of the

24
 Bank for both revenue and capital expenditure had authorised the Secretary of the
Bank to incur expenditure within the budgetary limit. Hence the allegation of being
not competent to make procurements is invalid and void. All procurements were made
in transparent manner following rules.

21. It is submitted that the then Management-in-Charge of OSCB who was incidentally also
the Commissioner-cum-Secretary Cooperation Department had dictated the Special
Auditors of Cuttack CCB and the enquiry officer (IO) of the domestic enquiry at the
instance of Sri T. K.Panda ex-Managing Director of OSCB to manufacture the Special
Audit Report and enquiry report against my husband to punish him severely at any cost.
The Special Audit was conducted by the Auditors of Audit Directorate of Cooperation
Department and the domestic enquiry was conducted by Sri B.Bhue, Joint Registrar of
Cooperative Societies in blatant violation of the established procedure and principles of
natural justice. Being subordinate officers of the then Management-in-Charge of OSCB,
they had manufactured the Special Audit Report and enquiry report under the dictate of
their supreme authority without any semblance of truth and procedure. Basing on the said
manufactured documents prepared behind the back of my husband, the disciplinary
authority penalized him with the severest punishment of “Dismissal from Service” causing
endless hardship and trauma to my husband and our family.
22. Even if admitting for a moment, that the backdated resolution of the MIC dated 20.09.2013
is valid and bona-fide to delegate power to the Managing Director for initiating disciplinary
proceedings against employees up to the rank of General Manager based on findings of
Enquiry, Audit including Special Audit and Inspection by Statutory Authorities, the so-
called delegation is misconceived as the disciplinary powers are never exercised through
some other authority and the rules do not provide for further delegation of such power by
the designated Disciplinary authority. In the instant case, the aforesaid delegation is hit by
the principle delegate’s non-protest delegate, i.e. a delegate cannot delegate. The principle
of law on this point is fairly settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Director
General E.S.I. and Anr. v. T. Abdul Razak etc., wherein their lordships have held as under:
“XXXXX 14. The law is well settled that in accordance with the maxim delegate’s
non-protest delegate, a statutory power must be exercised only by the body or

25
 officer in whom it has been confided, unless sub-delegation of the power is
authorized by express words or necessary implication. (See: Halsbury's Law of
England, 4th Edn. Vol. 1, Para 32 p.34; Craies on Statute Law, 7th Edn. p.316;
Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board, and Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. v.
Employees State Employees State Insurance Corporation. XXXXXXXXX”.
In view of the above, the impugned order of the disciplinary authority to dismiss my
husband from service vide Order No.2680 dated 28.07.2014 cannot be sustained in the eye
of law since the very initiation of disciplinary proceedings thereof stand vitiated and there
fore, have no existence in the eye of law.
23. The Management-in-Charge of the Bank being the Appellate arbitrarily rejected the appeal
petition of my husband filed under Rule 39 of the staff service rules of the Bank on the
ground ‘did not merit any consideration’ by a non-speaking Order without affording any
opportunity of personal hearing to my husband and without application of mind
communicated in letter No 519 dated 5.5.2015 of MD OSCB, being influenced by Sri
T.K.Panda the then Managing Director in blatant violation of the principles of natural
justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Chander vs. Union of India
had held on 2nd May, 1986, (Citation 1986, SCC (4)12, 1986 Scale (1) 1904, that:
“ XXXXXXXX. Such being the legal position, it is of utmost importance after the
Forty-Second Amendment as interpreted by the majority in Tulsiram Patel's case
that the Appellate Authority must not only give a hearing to the Government servant
concerned but also pass a reasoned order dealing with the contentions raised by
him in the appeal. We wish to emphasize that reasoned decisions by tribunals, such
as the Railway Board in the present case, will promote public confidence in the
administrative process. An objective consideration is possible only if the delinquent
servant is heard and given a chance to satisfy the Authority regarding the final
orders that may be passed on his appeal. Considerations of fair play and justice
also require that such a personal hearing should be given.XXXXXXX.”
In view of the above legal proposition, the illegal action of the Appellate authority the dismissal
order of my husband has become invalid in the eyes of law.
24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1217 of 2011 in the case of Brij
Bihari Singh versus Bihar State Financial Corporation and others on 20-11-2013 had set aside the

26
dismissal order imposed by the Board of Directors on the appellant on the ground that the
Managing Director, who being the disciplinary authority prepared his report and referred the
matter to the Board of Directors to consider the draft charges, enquiry report, representation filed
by the appellant and his finding, for taking an appropriate decision in the case, participated in the
Board meeting and a decision was taken by the Board of Directors to dismiss the appellant from
service holding the procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority to
be absolutely erroneous in the eyes of law. Similarly In Amar Nath Chowdhury vs. Braithwaite
and Company Ltd. and Ors., (2002) 2 SCC 290, a similar case came for consideration before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. In that case, the appellant who was an employee of Braithwaite and
Company Ltd., a Government of India undertaking, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. The
enquiry committee submitted its report to the disciplinary authority who was the Chairman-cum-
Managing Director of the Company. The disciplinary authority passed an order of removal of the
appellant from service. The appellant moved the Board of Directors who was the appellate
authority. When the appeal was taken up by the Board, the said Chairman-cum-Managing
Director participated in the deliberation of the meeting of the Board which heard and dismissed
the appeal. On these facts, this Court held that the proceeding of the Board was vitiated on account
of participation of the disciplinary authority while deciding the appeal preferred by the appellant.
Similar view had also been taken in the case of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. L.K.
Ratna and Ors., (1986) 4 SCC 537. Further in the case of K. Chelliah vs. Chairman Industrial
Finance Corporation of India and Anr., AIR 1973 Mad. 122, an employee of the IFCI was
dismissed from service. The decision to dismiss the employee was taken by Chairman who was
also a Member of the Board which considered the appeal. The Madras High Court held that the
entire proceeding was vitiated by non-observance of principles of natural justice. In the case of
my husband, Sri T.K.Panda who had initiated the unauthorised disciplinary proceeding against
him had participated and deliberated in the meeting of the Appointment Committee (Appointing
Authority and Disciplinary Authority) held on 12-06-2014 and 26-07-2014 as Member-Convenor
in which it was decided to dismiss him from service and treat the period of suspension as such.
Further the Management-in-Charge who had rejected the appeal of my husband without personal
hearing and without passing any speaking order vide its resolution Dt. 2.5.2015 had also
participated and deliberated in the said Appointment Committee meeting as Chairman. In the view
of the above mentioned judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Madras High Court, the

27
entire disciplinary action including the order of dismissal of my husband had been vitiated and
became nullity in the eyes law.
25. That, though provision for payment of subsistence allowance is prescribed in the staff
service Rules of the Bank to ensure non-violation of the right to life of the employee, Sri T.K.Panda
the then Managing Director of OSCB deliberately did not pay subsistence allowance to my
husband during the period of his suspension on flimsy grounds and put the livelihood of his entire
family members and his dependents at stake and violated the principles of natural justice for which
the entire disciplinary action against my husband was vitiated and became nullity.
26. I would further like to submit that the staff service of OSCB,1980 has been prescribed by
Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Odisha in exercise of the statutory powers conferred on him
u/s 33 A of OCS, Act and as per provisions Rule No.59 of the said service rule in case of doubt
arises as to interpretation of any of the staff service Rules the decision of Registrar in the matter
shall be final. My husband has been illegally dismissed from service in blatant violation of the
principles of natural justice and provisions of staff service rules of OSCB prescribed by Registrar
at every stage of the DP i.e. at the stage of framing and approval of charge sheet, at the time of
enquiry, at the time of awarding punishment by the Disciplinary Authority and at the time of
disposal of his appeal petition.
Prayer
In view of the facts narrated above, I would fervently seek your merciful intervention to give
justice to my husband who has suffered insurmountable despair and injustice due to atrocious act
of the then authorities who had deliberately deprived him from his livelihood by dismissing him
from service through an unauthorized and vitiated disciplinary proceedings basing on a perverse
inquiry report violating the provisions of the service rule and pray for passing of appropriate orders
to reinstate him in service honourably with back wages and all consequential benefits setting aside
the unauthorized disciplinary proceedings, suspension order and the order of illegal dismissal from
service including the order of treating the period of suspension as such for which act of kindness
the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.
Yours faithfully,

(Eva Panda)
W/o - Satyanarayan Panda
Ex-Deputy General Manager, OSCB.

28
 Address: VI M- 34, Sailashree Vihar,
Bhubaneswar-751021

Encl: Documents as per Annexure-1 to Annexure-16.

List of Documents
Sl. No. Description of documents Pages
1. Annexure-1
Copy of extracts of observation in NABARD Inspection
Report 2011-12. 30--32
2. Annexure-2
Copy of letter No. 5426 Dt. 27.9.2012 of Cuttack CCB
requesting NABARD for revision of the IR 2011-12. 33--34
3. Annexure-3
Copy of corrigendum issued by NABARD revising IR of
Cuttack CCB for 2011-12. 35--42
4. Annexure-4
Copy of circular guideline of AGCS vide letter No. 6764
Dt. 1.9.2006 requiring issue of half margin Memo and
Summons to liable persons. 43—45
5. Annexure-5
Copy of Order No. 6098 Dt. 31.10.13 of AGCS to afford
Opportunity to the delinquent during the course of Special
Audit of Cuttack CCB. 46
6. Annexure-6
Copy of letter No. 3850 Dt. 30.10.2013 of MD OSCB enclosing
PAR rule revised on 111.04.2013 wef 2009-10. 47--53
7. Annexure-7
Copy of Disciplinary Proceedings No. 6369 Dt. 30.01.2014
issued by MD OSCB to Satyanarayan Panda. 54—56
8. Annexure-8
Copy of Order of Suspension vide letter No. 6483 Dt. 5.2.2014. 57
9. Annexure-9
Copy of representation of my husband Dt. 9.6.2014 to keep in
abeyance/stay the disciplinary inquiry pending disposal of
WPC No.2085/2014. 58--60
10. Annexure-10
Copy of show cause notice vide letter No. 1665 13.06.2014
of MD OSCB along with the exparte inquiry report communicating
proposed punishment of dismissal from service treating period of

29
 suspension as such. 61--66
11. Annexure-11
Copy of dismissal order treating the period of suspension as such
Vide order No. 2680 Dt. 28.7.2014 of MD OSCB. 67
12. Annexure-12
Copy of Appeal Petition to Management of OSCB Dt. 19.9.2014. 68—78
13. Annexure-13
Appeal rejection order issued vide Order No. 529 Dt. 5.5.2015. 79
14. Annexure-14
Copy of compliance submitted by Cuttack CCB duly approved
by their Committee of Management in on the defects
observed in NABARD IR 2012-13. 80--129
15. Annexure-15
Copy of resolution of Registrar-cum-MIC approving excess
CRR of Cuttack CCB. 130---131
16. Annexure-16
Copy of budget estimate of Cuttack CCB concurred by OSCB
with cash in hand position of Rs 65 Cr for 2012-13 along with
resolution of Registrar-cum-MIC authorising Secretary to incur
expenditure within the budgetary limit. 132-146
17. Annexure-17
Copy of Government in G. A. Department circular bearing letter
No. 12448 Dt. 21.05.2004 prescribing detail guidelines on
drawal of disciplinary proceeding on the basis of Audit report. 147-148
18. Annexure-18
Copy of RBI letter No. DCCBs (BHU) No. 277/05.01.006/2015-16
Dt. 24.12.2015 informing requirement of maintenance of minimum
3% CRR and no upper limit has been prescribed by RBI. 148-152

30
31