IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 17953 of 2009 Date of decision: 29.04.2011 Nandan Singh Mandral ...Petitioner Versus State Bank of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner initially joined the services of the respondent/Bank as Peon. He was promoted as Assistant in the year 1991. Thereafter, he was promoted as Senior Assistant in the year 2004. On 16.11.2007, he was placed under suspension. The petitioner was served a charge sheet on 03.12.2007 with the allegation that he had fraudulently withdrawn ` 50,000/- on 08.10.2007 from the State Bank Account belonging to Smt. Madhu Jhingan and Sh. Satish Kumar Jhingan. This fact came to notice when E-mail stating therein was received from Sh. Satish Kumar Jhingan, who had later withdrawn the complaint. The petitioner in response submitted that he had made this payment against duly signed instrument in the normal course of Bank business. The inquiry officer was appointed where Sh. Satish Kumar Jhingan appeared to state that there was confusion about some entry in his saving account, which has been reconciled. Still the Civil Writ Petition No. 17953 of 2009 -2- charges levelled against the petitioner was held proved before the inquiry officer. The petitioner would term this to be illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner submitted a representation against the finding given by the inquiry officer. The petitioner, however, was also issued show cause notice calling upon to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service. The petitioner filed a detailed reply to this notice. The petitioner, thereafter, was removed from service on 15.12.2008. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same on 23.01.2009, which was rejected on 18.03.2009. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the writ petition to impugn his order of removal as well as the order whereby his appeal has been rejected. During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner has raised a single fold argument to the effect that the impugned orders are cryptic and non-speaking and that his pleas raised in the appeal had not been properly considered and dealt with. The allegations made against the petitioner are rather serious. A person, who is working as Teller has been accused of withdrawing an amount from the account of account holder. This is rather serious allegation and would reveal even commission of criminal offence on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner may not deserve such consideration keeping in view the nature of allegation. On the other hand, the petitioner is entitled full opportunities to raise his defence and the plea raised by him would need to be considered in accordance with law. The submissions that the grounds raised in the appeal have not been appropriately considered may need to be Civil Writ Petition No. 17953 of 2009 -3- examined. That has to be done by an appellate authority. There is no need or justification to interfere in the orders impugned on the merits of the controversy, I deem it appropriate to remand the case back to the appellate authority to reconsider the appeal and pass an appropriate order afresh if the appellate authority considers that any of the points raised by the petitioner earlier have not been dealt with. Except for this, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is called for. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. The petitioner may be afforded an opportunity of hearing if he asks for it while considering his appeal. April 29, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE