The High Court of Oriassa disposed of a writ petition challenging departmental proceedings against an employee for fraudulent declaration in recruitment. The court held the proceedings maintainable despite the delay and permitted filing of an additional written statement while vacating an interim stay order.
null
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.4823 of 2025
CNR No. ODHC010312442022
Milina Padhi
…. Petitioner
Mr. B.S. Tripathy-1, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. N.C. Rout, Advocate -versus-
General Manager State Bank of India CRPD …. Opp. Parties Corporate Centre Mumbai Mr. S. Misra, Adv. for O.P.3 & Ors.
CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER
09.09.2026
09.09.2026 Order No. 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:-
“ It is therefore most humbly prayed that your Lordship may graciously be pleased to admit the Writ application and issue a Rule NISI to the Opp. Parties to show cause as to
i) Why the letter dated 27.01.2025 for initiation of departmental proceeding vide Annexure-12 and the article of charges dated 02.01.2025 under Annexure10 shall not be quashed
And if the opp. parties fail to show cause or showed insufficient cause then the Rule be made absolute by issuing appropriate Writ (s)/ order (s) direction(s) and any other order as deem fit and proper;
// 2 //
And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.”
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently contended that Petitioner in terms of the advertisement issued by the State Bank of India on 22.05.2014 under Annexure-2 after being found eligible in all respect was provided with the appointment vide letter dtd.11.05.2015 under Annexure-3, Petitioner was so appointed as against the post of Asst. General Manager (HR).
4.1 . It is contended that while so continuing basing on the letter of appointment issued under Annexure-3, the proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner by the Opposite Party No.2-Bank vide Memorandum dtd.02.01.2025 inter alia with the following charges:-
“STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS AGAINST VIGILANCE (MAJOR) Ms. MILINA PADHI, JMGS-1
Ms. Milina Padhi. Officer, JMGS-I (PF: 7632160) has submitted false Clerical cadre in State Bank of India, She has committed the following irregularities:information/statement in connection to her appointment for the post of Assistant in Clerical cadre in State Bank of India, she has committed the following irregularities:-
IMPUTATION NO. 1
Ms. Milina Padhi has applied through CRPD advertisement No. CRPD/CR/2014-15/02 dated 22.05.2014 to join State Bank of India as Junior Assistant in Clerical cadre. Roll No. 2521531214 under the category "GEN-DEP-EXS (Dependent of Service killed in action)" and got selected and joined the bank on 11.05.2015 as Junior Assistant.
Page 2 of 9
// 3 //
She has applied for the post, submitting false information or suppression of factual information pertaining to the criteria to Ex-servicemen as stipulated in above mentioned issued by Senior Record Officer of the Mechanized Infantry Regiment, Ahmednagar CRPD advertisement. As per the Certificate showing Pa sculars of a Deceased Solider (which was submitted by Ms. Padhi to Bank on 11.12.2014), the cause of death is mentioned as Severy Closed Head injury". Also, in the same certificate at Si No. 10. Attributability to military service or otherwise is mentioned as "Not attributable to Military Service. As per facts of the case, husband of the candidate, Ms. Milina Padhi, Late/Hav/Clk Siba Prasad Das, Army No. 14926386P met with a road accident on 26.11.2009 while on casual leave and died (Death Certificate No.85827 dated 16.12.2009) while being treated at Military Hospital, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
So, Ms. Padhi was not eligible for recruitment in the bank under dependent of Ex-servicemen category. She made fraudulent declaration of her husband's death as killed in military action whereas he died due to a road accident just in order to avail quota offered by bank to dependents of Servicemen killed in action.
IMPUTATION NO. 2
Ms. Milina Padhi possess two set of PAN Card in the name of Milina Padhi and Milina Dash. Possessing more than one PAN card is highly irregular and contravention to the guidelines of Income Tax Rule and can result in Penalty. Ms. Padhi was getting family pension in the name of Mrs Milina Dash in SB Account 30983400905, which is not linked with PAN Card and UID till date.
IMPUTATION NO. 3
After the death of her husband, Ms. Milina Padhi has submitted an affidavit sworn in before Executive Magistrate, Bhubaneswar dated 09.12.2014, that in future she will be known as 'Milina Dash' instead of 'Milina Padhl'. She made a fraudulent declaration against the CRPD recruitment advertisement dated 22.05.2014 and applied for the job in the Bank in the name of 'Milina Padhi'.
Para 2. Ms. Padhi has thus failed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and
Page 3 of 9
// 4 //
discharge her duties with utmost devotion, diligence, honesty and integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of an officer and has also used unfair means in recruitment process by the bank to avail quota offered by bank to dependents of servicemen killed in action and has thus, contravened Rules 50 (4) and 50 (8) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rule 1992, governing her services in the Bank”.
4.2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner at the very first instance contended that no such proceeding is permissible and could not have been initiated relying on the State Bank of India Officer Service Rules, 1992, as Petitioner during her incumbency as an officer has not committed any illegalities resulting initiation of the proceeding.
4.3 . It is contended that since the allegation in the proceeding is with regard to submission of false declaration to get the benefit of appointment, no such proceeding under the aforesaid Rules is permissible.
4.4 . It is also contended that such a proceeding is not maintainable after about ten years of the appointment of the Petitioner.
4 . 5 . A further submissions is also made that after initiation of the proceeding vide Memorandum dtd.02.01.2025 and prior to submission of the written statement of defence by the Petitioner on 27.01.2025 under Annexure-11, the Enquiry Officer since was already appointed vide order dtd.27.01.2025 under Annexure-12, no such appointment of Enquiry Officer
Page 4 of 9
// 5 //
could have been made, prior to receipt of the written statement of defence from the Petitioner.
4.6 . It is accordingly that since the proceeding is not maintainable as per the service rules basing on which the proceeding has been initiated, the proceeding is liable to be interfered with by this Court.
4.7 . It is further contended that this Court while issuing notice of the matter since passed an interim order staying the proceeding, no further action has been taken.
5. Mr. S. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-Bank on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed.
5.1 . It is contended that as per the terms of the advertisement issued under Annexure-2, more particularly Para-15 and 16 (v) and the stipulation contained in the order of appointment issued under Annexure-3 vide Para-(u), there is no such bar for initiation of the proceeding, if subsequent to appointment of an employee under the Bank, it came to the knowledge of the Bank that the employee concerned has got the benefit by furnishing incorrect / false / fake / invalid information, declaration etc. Para-15 and 16(v) of the advertisement and Clause-(u) of the letter of appointment reads as follows:-
Page 5 of 9
// 6 //
“ 15. ACTION AGAINST CANDIDATES FOUND GUILTY OF CONDUCT .
Candidates are cautioned that they should not furnish any particulars that are false, tampered/fabricated and they should not suppress any material information while filling up the application form.
At the time of examination/interview, if a candidate is (or has been) found guilty of.
(i) using unfair means during the examination or (ii) impersonating or procuring impersonation by any person or (iii) misbehaving in the examination/interview hall or disclosing, publishing, reproducing, transmitting, storing or facilitating transmission and storage of contents of the test(s) or any information therein in whole or part thereof in any form or by any means, verbal or written, electronically or mechanically for any purpose or (iv) resorting to any irregular or improper means in connection with his/her candidature for selection or (v) obtaining support for his/her candidature by any unfair means, such a candidate may, in addition to rendering himself/herself liable to criminal prosecution, will also be liable:
a) to be disqualified from the examination for which he/she is a candidate
b) to be debarred, either permanently or for a specified period, from any examination or recruitment conducted by the Bank
(ii) The Bank would be analysing the responses of a candidate with other appeared candidates to detect patterns of similarity. On the basis of such an analysis, if it is found that the responses have been shared and scores obtained are not genuine/valid, the Bank reserves the right to cancel his/her candidature
(iii) Use of Mobile Phones, pagers, calculator or any such devices:
Candidates before entering examination premises are likely to be frisked to ensure compliance with followings:
a) Mobile phones, pagers or any other communication devices are not allowed inside the premises where the examination is being conducted. Any infringement of these instructions shall entail cancellation of candidature and disciplinary action including ban from future examinations.
Page 6 of 9
// 7 //
b) Candidates are advised in their own interest not to bring any of the banned item including mobile phones/pagers to the venue of the examination, as arrangement for safekeeping cannot be assured.
c) Candidates are not permitted to use or have in possession of calculators in examination premises.
xxx xxx xxx
16(v):- IN CASE IT IS DETECTED AT ANY STAGE OF RECRUITMENT THAT A CANDIDATE DOES NOT FULFIL THE ELIGIBILITY NORMS AND/OR THAT HE / SHE HAS FURNISHED ANY INCORRECT / FALSE INFORMATION OR HAS SUPPRESSED ANY MATERIAL FACT(S), HIS/HER CANDIDATURE WILL STAND CANCELLED. IF ANY OF THESE SHORTCOMINGS IS / ARE DETECTED EVEN AFTER APPOINTMENT, HIS/HER SERVICES ARE LIABLE TO BE TERMINATED.
xxx xxx xxx
Clause-15(u) Please note that in the event of any of the information, declarations, certificates/ testimonials, being found incorrect / false / fake / invalid of you have concealed or suppressed any material facts, this appointment shall be deemed invalid ab initio and you will render yourself liable for appropriate action including departmental action, removal/dismissal from service”.
5.2. It is accordingly contended that since in terms of the advertisement and so also the stipulation contained in the order of appointment, the proceeding has been initiated with the charge that Petitioner has got the benefit of appointment by making false declaration, the proceeding is very much maintainable.
5.3 . It is further contended that since Petitioner after receipt of the Memorandum submitted the written statement of defence under Annexure-11, there was no occasion to challenge the initiation of the proceeding.
Page 7 of 9
// 8 //
5.4 . It is further contended that since the Writ Petition has been filed challenging initiation of the proceeding, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. It is always open for the Petitioner to take all such stand as is available to her in the proceeding itself.
6 . To the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party-Bank, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner made further submission contending inter alia that Petitioner in addition to the written statement of defence filed under Annexure-11, be permitted to file an additional one and the same be accepted.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that pursuant to the advertisement issued on 22.05.2014 under Annexure-2, Petitioner was provided with the appointment as against the post of Asst. General Manager (HR) vide letter of appointment issued on 11.05.2015 under Annexure-3. However, as found, the proceeding was initiated vide Memorandum dtd.02.01.2025 under Annexure-10, with the charge that Petitioner has furnished false, declaration to get the benefit of appointment.
7.1 . It is also not disputed that Petitioner after receipt of the Memorandum, submitted her written statement of defence on 27.01.2025 under Annexure-11. Since
Page 8 of 9
// 9 //
Petitioner has already filed a written statement of defence under Annexure-11 and the Enquiry Officer has already been appointed on 27.01.2025 itself, this Court placing reliance on the stipulation contained under Para-15 read with Para-16(v) and the stipulation contained under Clause-(u) of the letter of appointment is of the view of that the proceeding is very much maintainable.
7 . 2 . However, considering the request of the learned Senior Counsel, this Court permits the Petitioner to file Addl. written statement of defence if any as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On such filing of the Addl. written statement of defence, if any, the disciplinary authority-Opposite Party No.2 shall proceed with the proceeding in accordance with law and decide the issue taking into account the stand taken by the Petitioner in her written statement of defence under Annexure-11 as well as the addl. written statement of defence to be filed. Opposite Party No.2 is also directed to take into consideration any case law to be furnished by the Petitioner in support of her stand.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.
Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, Subrat CU TTACK Date: 11-Sep-2026 13:40:15
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Page 9 of 9
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a departmental proceeding against a bank employee for furnishing false declaration during recruitment is maintainable after appointment.
Whether an enquiry officer could be appointed after the employee had already filed a written statement of defence in the departmental proceeding.
Whether the writ petition challenging the initiation of departmental proceedings is maintainable.
Milina Padhi
General Manager State Bank of India CRPD
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
