LPA No. 310 of 2004 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 310 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.03.2010 Chief Manager and another ....Appellants. Versus Mrs. Swaran Kaur Sharma and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for the appellants. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. For the reasons shown in the restoration application along with affidavit, the application is allowed. Order dated 10.9.2008 is recalled. 2. Heard on merits. 3. By way of present appeal, the appellant is assailing order dated 8.10.2003 passed by learned Single Judge whereby allowing writ petition in part upholding the recovery from the delinquent employee being the amount of loss caused to the bank and quashing the part of the order dismissing the petitioner from service. 4. Brief facts of the present case are that M.R. Sharma, petitioner LPA No. 310 of 2004 2 was working as Assistant Divisional Manager, Central Bank of India, Chandigarh. He was served a charge sheet dated 31.12.1976 for certain acts of omission and commission. As a consequence of the charge sheet, inquiry was held by the Divisional Manager of the bank and the petitioner was held guilty of the charges attributed to him and the matter was referred to the disciplinary committee and ultimately the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 12.9.1979. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Regulation 17 of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1976 against the order of dismissal; the appellate authority vide order dated 7.3.1980 directed denovo inquiry in the matter. The petitioner filed CWP No.2640 of 1981 against the order 20.4.1980, which was admitted and the order dated 20.4.1980 was stayed. He again filed CWP No.4456 of 1981praying for reinstatement and arrears of salary. The aforesaid writ petition was also admitted. On 20.1.1982, the aforesaid two writ petitions were allowed and the petitioner reported to join duty in the bank, but he was not allowed to join on that day. He was allowed to join duty on 25.1.1980 and was asked to proceed immediately to the Civil Lines Jalandhar Branch of the Bank in connection the departmental inquiry. Ultimately, the petitioner was held guilty and liable to pay Rs.1,47,485.53. After deducting the aforesaid amount, Rs.49,493.92 were paid to the petitioner and Rs.97,991/- were indicated to be due and payable by the petitioner to the bank in terms of order dated 28.1.1982. The petitioner filed CWPNo.655 of 1982 assailing the aforesaid order, which was dismissed as withdrawn to file an appeal within 15 days. The appeal was dismissed and the order dated 28.1.1982 was confirmed. The aforesaid order was assailed by filing CWP No.3403 of 1982, the same was also dismissed as withdrawn LPA No. 310 of 2004 3 to file a review application. The review application was also dismissed on 2.7.1983. The aforesaid order dated 2.7.1983 was challenged by filing CWP No.4422 of 1983. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 6. Undisputedly, the appellant – delinquent employee after reaching the age of superannuation stood retired on 1.2.1982. After his superannuation/retirement, we do not think that any order would be justified upholding the order of dismissal. Undisputedly, the appellant was not found guilty of any embezzlement. The only charge against the petitioner was of acts of omission and commission not as per the established rules of the bank. Meaning thereby, the only charge was of irregularity or negligence for which we think dismissal is not appropriate. Undisputedly, order of the disciplinary authority to recover from the appellant amount of loss caused to the bank because of the acts of omission and commission of the appellant has already been upheld by learned Single Judge. Hence we are not inclined to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 7. Appeal is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 05.03.2010 sk.