CWP No.20901 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.20901 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 05-01-2011 Kanwaljit Singh Bhatia ....Petitioner VERSUS Punjab National Bank and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr.I.D.Singla, Advocate for the petitioner MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 9.6.2005, 21.10.2005, 3.12.2005, 8.4.2006, 20.10.2006 and 6.4.2010 vide which he has been compulsorily retired from service alongwith superannuation benefits. He faced allegations of impropriety as many as three charges were levelled against him vide chargesheet issued on 9.6.2005 which are detailed below:- i) on 30.11.2004, he credited his housing loan a/c no. SHGP-I with a sum of Rs. 7200/- which actually pertains to housing loan a/c No. HSGP-1 of Shri Satnam Singh. ii)He raised conveyance loan under staff scheme on 26.3.2004 for purchase of Chetak Scooter and failed to complete the formalities and also to submit copy of RC despite reminders. iii)He credited his conveyance loan account with sum of Rs.3000/- and Rs.19000/- which actually pertains to account No. SHSGP-27 of Sh. Sanjiv Seth and Smt. Neeru and CWP No.20901 of 2010 (O&M) 2 account No. TLFM-8 in the name of Dhian Singh and Gian Singh respectively. On 30.12.2004, he deposited Rs.145/- cash into his said account and brought the balance to zero. Subsequently he reversed the entries of Rs.19000/- and Rs. 3000/- on 14.1.2005 and 15.1.2005 respectively from his conveyance loan account and credited the same to the account holders. Opportunity was granted to the petitioner to refute these allegations but for the reasons best known to him he failed to respond to the chargesheet and the notice issued to him. The Departmental inquiry against him concluded vide its report dated 21.10.2005 that the petitioner was guilty of irregularities which were alleged against him. A show cause notice was issued to him on 25.3.2006 proposing the punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits which punishment was awarded and confirmed. Appeal against the said order was also dismissed. Thereafter, the dispute went before the Presiding Officer, Industrial-cum-Labour Court Chandigarh who passed an award declining the reference before it. The petitioner is thus impugning the orders passed by the competent authority, retiring him compulsorily from service as also the award of the Labour Court on the ground that the charges do not stand established against him. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent – Management of the Bank has miserably failed to establish the allegations against him and that the punishment awarded is dis- proportionate to the tenure of the service that he has rendered with the respondents. CWP No.20901 of 2010 (O&M) 3 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the impugned award as also the other orders impugned herein, but I am unable to accept the contentions raised before this Court for the reason that the petitioner failed to associate himself with the inquiry proceedings. He did not even submit a reply to the allegations against him depriving the competent authority of the stand intened to be taken by the petitioner. At this stage of the proceedings when there is no material on record from where this Court can appreciate the stand of the petitioner and also considering the fact that there has been no error in law or procedure pointed out by the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The contention that the punishment is dis-proportionate and should be reduced appropriately is not within the domain of this Court which cannot sit over the order of the disciplinary authority to justify whether the punishment in given set of circumstances is excessive or not. No merit. Dismissed. January 05, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge