IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3095 of 2004 Date of Decision : March 18, 2011. O.N.Sharma .....Petitioner versus The Punjab National Bank and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Santosh Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner was working as a Special Assistant in the respondent No.1-Bank when he was charge-sheeted on 31.12.1999 (Annexure P-1) alleging that he cleared the cheque dated 21.3.1997 for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- in violation of the bank's guidelines as he was not the Cash Credit Incharge or Loan Incharge. The petitioner's reply to the charge-sheet was found unsatisfactory, followed by a regular departmental enquiry held against him. The Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty of the above-stated charge. A copy of the enquiry report was duly supplied to the petitioner and after considering his comments, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of “withdrawal of special pay of the Special Assistant and debarred him for posting as Special Assistant for a C.W.P.No .3095 of 2004 2 period of two years.” The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal against the punishment order which was also dismissed vide self-speaking order dated 31.12.2003. Still aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. It may be mentioned here that a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.7.2006 allowed the petitioner's claim in part to the extent that the Appellate order was quashed on the ground that no opportunity of personal hearing before dismissing his appeal was afforded to the petitioner and a direction was issued to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The respondent-bank challenged the Division Bench decision before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.14 of 2009 which was allowed vide order dated 5.1.2009 after holding that opportunity of personal hearing at the appellate stage cannot be claimed as a matter of right unless expressly provided under the rules. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has remitted the matter to this Court for fresh consideration. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. It is well settled law that a Writ Court would not ordinarily interfere with the findings of fact returned in a domestic enquiry nor would impose its opinion in the matter of quantum of punishment unless it is shown on the face of the record that the domestic enquiry has been conducted in gross violation of the principles of natural justice or the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the nature of charges that it C.W.P.No .3095 of 2004 3 pricks the conscious of the court. Learned counsel for the petitioner though has made an attempt but is unable to point out any lacuna in the prescribed procedure followed by the respondent-bank during the course of disciplinary proceedings. Similarly, the nature of punishment especially when the allegations proved against the petitioner pertain to financial irregularity, cannot be said to be disproportionate. No case to interfere with the impugned order is made out. Dismissed. March 18, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE