CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8295 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 10 ,2011 R. C. Sidhu .....Petitioner VERSUS Canara Bank, Bangalore and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Vijay K. Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner, who is an employee of Canara Bank, was proceeded against on account of certain allegations and ultimately removed from service by the Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate Authority, however, interfered and reduced the punishment to compulsory retirement on 21.9.2010. The petitioner has impugned this order through the present writ petition on various counts. The main submission, which was advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that order of compulsory retirement could have been made on account of valid reasons and justification, which are found wanting in the impugned order and hence, the order can CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8295 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: not be sustained. The plea, as made, apparently is making it look very simple but the facts in this case would reveal a different situation. While being posted as Chief Manager at Jammu Main Branch, the petitioner is alleged to have committed various irregularities and for this, the petitioner was served a charge sheet on 18.7.2008. An enquiry was conducted. The petitioner was given opportunity to file reply to the charge sheet and after conclusion of the enquiry, Disciplinary Authority passed an order removing the petitioner from service on 13.8.2009. Pleading that there was no finding that any loss was caused to the Bank, the petitioner preferred an appeal against this order, when the Appellate Authority reduced the punishment to compulsory retirement. The main and star argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is that he was a star performer throughout his career and for which he had been appreciated and issued letters and commendation certificates. These have been placed on record as Annexures P9A to P9Z8. That may be so but equally serious are the allegations, which are contained in charge sheet, Annexure P-1. The petitioner had allegedly exceeded his delegated powers while being working as a Branch Manager and the accounts became NPA to the extent of `82.99 lacs in one case, recovery of which is doubtful. The petitioner extended OCC limit to `20 lacs and thereafter to `40 lacs in this case, which led to outstanding liability to the extent as noted above. Similar allegations are contained in other charges, which are six in number. It has not been urged before me in any manner that CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8295 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: there was any procedural or other violations while holding enquiry. Except for making reference to the good record of the petitioner, for which he was appreciated, no submission has been advanced. There is no valid or justifiable reason made out to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ Court, in all such matters, exercise limited jurisdiction on the well known and understood grounds, none of which is made out in the present case. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. May 10,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE