IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION 11061 OF 2006 DATE OF DECISION: JULY 28 ,2008 Prem Singh ....Petitioner Versus Central Bank of India & others ....Respondents CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr.H.C.Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Alok Jagga, Advocate, for the respondents 01- Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2- To be referred to the reporters or not? 3- Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28-04-2005 imposing punishment of lowering down pay scale by two stages for a period of two years and withdrawal of special pay permanently as well as the order dated 10-09-2005 whereby his appeal has been rejected. The petitioner joined the respondent-Bank as a Clerk on 25-07-2003. Vide order dated 29-03-2004, a charge sheet was issued to him. Regular enquiry was ordered wherein after giving full opportunity to the petitioner, all the charges were held proved against him. Thereafter, the punishing authority issued notice to the petitioner asking to show cause why punishment mentioned in para 1 above be not imposed upon him. Thereafter, personal hearing was granted to the petitioner on 20-04-2005 and punishment was imposed as mentioned in para 1 above vide --2-- order dated 28-04-2005. His appeal having been dismissed on 10-09-2005 as mentioned in Para 1 above,he has filed the present petition. When the petition came up for hearing on 24-07-2006, learned counsel for the petitioner restricted his claim only to the prayer that withdrawal of special pay permanently was not justified in the light of Rule M2.2 of the Memorandum of Agreement dated 29-05-2000 between the Management of the Central Bank of India and All India Central Bank Employees Federation. For facility of reference Rule M2.2 is quoted hereinbelow:- “An employee who has been punished for gross misconduct in the past shall be eligible for selection/identification/posting/ officiating in Special pay carrying post/higher cadre, only after completion of 24 months from the date of serving the orders of punishment.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that under the above mentioned rule, punishment of withdrawal of special pay could be imposed only for a period of 24 months and, thus, the said punishment having been imposed upon the petitioner permanently was illegal. We find no merit in the argument of the learned counsel. The abovementioned rule only lays down that any employee who has been punished for gross misconduct cannot be considered for selection/special pay etc. for at least 24 months. The rule no way lays down that the effect of punishment cannot be more than 24 months as is being sought to be convassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It would always be open to the competent authority to impose any punishment more than the minimum punishment prescribed in appropriate circumstances. Consequently, we find no infirmity in the punishment of withdrawal of special pay permanently which has been imposed upon the petitioner. --3-- This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with however no order as to costs. Sd/- [Ajay Tewari] Judge sd/- [Hemant Gupta] Judge July28 ,2008 MandeepKaur