'Work With Love Or Sit Outside Temple': Orissa High Court Cites Khalil Gibran, Upholds Bank Employee's Removal For Defying Transfer

“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,” the Orissa High Court quoted Lebanese-American writer Kahlil Gibran as it denied to grant any relief to a former female bank employee who was removed from service due to unauthorized absence from office upon her transfer to a different place.

Rejecting the writ appeal filed by the appellant/employee against an unfavourable order, the Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed–

“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 intent to cling on to the same place.”

The appellant was transferred from Bhubaneswar region to Godhra region on 26.09.2019. She did not join at the new place as she had to look after her aged and ailing parents. Thereafter an inquiry was held where she was found guilty of misconduct and accordingly, she was removed from service on 30.04.2021.

She assailed her removal before the appellate authority which upheld the original order. Consequently, she approached the High Court against both the aforesaid orders. A Single Bench of the High Court found no fault with the impugned orders. Therefore, this intra-court appeal was filed against the Single Bench's order.

The appellant argued that the order of removal was passed in a hasty manner, without affording an opportunity of hearing to her. The Court, however, did not find any substance in such argument. Accordingly, it observed–

“The only allegation being unauthorized absence, such a Disciplinary Proceeding cannot be long drawn, only to cater to the arguable need of delinquent. Admittedly, the proceedings were held for hours. Therefore, the first contention that the Proceeding has been hastily completed does not merit acceptance, added reason being the absence of demonstrable prejudice by the arguable haste.”

The delinquent employee further endeavoured to defend her act of staying away from the job on the moral ground of taking care of her ageing and ailing parents. Such ground was not favourable taken by the Court since she did not disclose about her sister and brother, who are also there to take care of her parents. The Court was of the view that her case is one of suppressio veri (which means “suppression of truth”) and thus, it held that a person who does not approach the Court with clean hands, clean heart and clean head is not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction.

So far as the contention of disproportionate punishment was concerned, the Court nixed such submission observing–

“Added, once an inquiry is properly held with due participation of the delinquent, what punishment is to be awarded for the proven guilt lies in the domain of the Disciplinary Authority/Employer, and a Writ Court, subject to all just exceptions, ordinarily should loathe to interfere. No exceptional case is demonstrated before us. Not complying with transfer order would create lot many difficulties in banking service, which is of all India nature. After all, the Bank has only issued an order of removal simpliciter as contradistinguished from dismissal. Thus, it is non-stigmatic, that does not merit a deeper examination at the hands of Writ Court, sitting in Appeal.”

As a corollary, the writ appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: Itishree Nath v. Bank of Baroda & Ors.

Case No: Writ Appeal No. 2970 of 2024

Date of Judgment: April 21, 2026

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Sidheswar Mallik, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. K.M.H. Niamati, Advocate

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 46

Click Here To Read/Download Order