CWP No.2539 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.2539 OF 2008 DATE OF DECISION: 20-02-2008 Karam Singh .....PETITIONER VERSUS The Chandigarh State Cooperative Bank and others .....RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL PRESENT: Mr.N.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 20-01-2006 (Annexure P7) wherein punishment of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner and order in appeal dated 05-12-2006 (Annexure P8) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal was dismissed. The petitioner while working as Deputy Manager in the respondent-Bank was charge-sheeted for various acts of mis-conduct. The allegation against the petitioner was advancement of loans against fictitious FDRs and NSCs amounting to Rs.9.89 lacs, which being forged CWP No.2539 of 2008 2 one and non-existent could not be pledged/discharged in favour of the Bank. These loans were advanced without completing other formalities with the malafide intention for getting pecuniary benefit for himself. The other charge levelled against the petitioner was that he had advanced and sanctioned M.T. non agriculture loan to 14 beneficiaries detailed in the statement of imputations without getting the requisite formalities completed and had failed to safeguard the interest of the Bank for reasons best known to him. The third charge that the petitioner has failed to exercise his control over the subordinate staff and made over payments to the account holders for vested interest, which caused financial loss to the Bank. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on 06-03-2004 (Annexure P1). The petitioner inspected the documents but did not submit any reply to the charge-sheet. Mr.Man Mohan Hurria, I.A.S. (retired) was appointed as Inquiry Officer but the petitioner failed to appear and join the inquiry proceedings. The Inquiry officer gave his report on 04-09-2005 wherein charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. The learned Inquiry Officer permitted the inspection of the record on 23-07-2005 as well. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 29-11-2005 along with a copy of the inquiry report. The petitioner submitted his reply on 15-12-2005. The petitioner was provided opportunity of personal hearing on 10-01-2006 and, thereafter, order of punishment of dismissal of service of the petitioner was passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The said order has been affirmed in appeal as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the documents on which the Bank has relied upon in the charge-sheet CWP No.2539 of 2008 3 was not supplied to the petitioner. As the documents were not supplied, the petitioner did not participate in the inquiry proceedings, therefore, the conduct of inquiry ex parte is vitiated. It is also pointed out that in respect of charge No.2 the allegations have been levelled that the petitioner had advanced loan from the period 01-10-2002 to 30-09-2003 without completing the formalities is not tenable for the reason that the petitioner joined as Branch Manager on 01-01-2003. Therefore, the finding of the Inquiry Officer on the said charge is again not tenable. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the disciplinary proceedings, which led to the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner. The petitioner has not filed any reply to the charge-sheet served upon him. He was allowed to inspect the documents but still he chose not to participate in the inquiry proceedings. The Inquiry Officer has given the report after recording the categoric finding that the petitioner did not associate himself in the inquiry. After completion of the inquiry, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice along with a copy of the Inquiry Report. The reply filed by the petitioner has been considered and even opportunity of hearing was provided to him. The appeal has been decided with a speaking order. While exercising the power of judicial review, this Court in the writ petition does not exercise the jurisdiction as that of Appellate Court. The Court is to examine the decision making process and whether the principle of natural justice has been complied with. The proceedings taken by the Department shows that opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner but he chose not to contest the allegations before the Disciplinary CWP No.2539 of 2008 4 Authority at the appropriate stage. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not refer to any illegality in the decision making process, which may necessitate the exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed in limine. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE ( MOHINDER PAL ) February 20, 2008 JUDGE jt