C.W.P. No.12347 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.12347 of 2011 Date of Decision: 18.07.2011 Sanjeev Narain Mathur ....Petitioner Versus State Bank of India and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? **** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the impugned order dated 17.02.2009 (Annexure P-4) dated 14/16.07.2010 (Annexure P-10), vide which, the petitioner stand dismissed from service. While challenging the said orders, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that except for the one incident, the entire service of the petitioner is good and the alleged amount has also been deposited by him. Secondly, no personal hearing has been granted and the appeal of the petitioner against the impugned order of dismissal dated 17.02.2009 is still pending. Lastly, the respondents, instead of adjudicating the appeal have sent the impugned order dated 14/16.07.2010 stating that the appeal C.W.P. No.12347 of 2011 2 has already been decided by them. Heard. Taking up the first argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the record of the petitioner is good, it may be noticed that the charge against the petitioner was as under :- “1. You had stolen the undelivered ATM card No.6220180228000064367 and the relative PIN mailer pertaining to the S.B. A/c No.10354028860 of Col. V. Bhatnagar and Mrs. Sunaina Bhatnagar from our Chandimandir branch, while posted as Messenger thereat. 2. With the help of this stolen ATM card and PIN mailer you fraudulently withdrew Rs.41,000/- (Rs. Forty one thousand only) from three different ATMs on different dates as detailed hereunder :- S.No. Date of withdrawal Amount withdrawn ATM site from where amount was withdrawn 1 24.03.2007 Rs.15,000/- SBOO-ATM, Manimajra 2 27.03.2007 Rs.15,000/- SBI-ATM, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula 3 30.03.2007 Rs.11,000/- SBI-ATM, Z.O. Haryana, Sector 5, Panchkula It is not disputed that the Enquiry Officer was appointed and all the charges levelled against him have been proved. Surprisingly, the petitioner has not even placed the enquiry report on record. The fact that the petitioner had deposited the amount speaks for itself and the depositing of the said amount will not absolve him of the allegation. As such, the first argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, has no merit. Taking up the second and third argument that no personal hearing has been granted to the petitioner and his appeal is still pending, a perusal of the order dated 17.02.2009 passed by the Disciplinary Authority shows that in fact, the enquiry report was submitted to the petitioner on 29.11.2008 but the petitioner did not submit any reply to the said enquiry report. He was also called upon to show cause as to why the proposed C.W.P. No.12347 of 2011 3 punishment should not be inflicted upon him. However, the petitioner did not make any submissions nor requested for personal hearing. As such, the Disciplinary Authority after considering all the aspects decided to inflict upon him the penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 17.02.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner chose to keep quiet for almost eleven months. Thereafter, vide Annexure P-5 dated 17.03.2010 which was moved after eleven months, the petitioner apologized and prayed for reinstatement in service. The same was considered as appeal and decided by the Appellate Authority and the decision duly communicated to the petitioner vide Memo dated 14/16.07.2010 (Annexure P-10). Thereafter, the petitioner i.e after almost two years of the impugned order and after eleven months of the order dismissing his earlier appeal dated 17.03.2010, sent another appeal dated 25.02.2011 (Annexure P-6) against the impugned order dated 17.02.2009, vide which, he was dismissed from service. However, it is evident that his earlier appeal dated 17.03.2010 was also against the impugned order which stood decided and communicated to him. As such, the petitioner cannot raise the argument that his P-6 dated 25.02.2011 should be considered as an appeal and the earlier alleged representation/appeal dated 17.03.2010 should be ignored. Moreover, there is no fresh ground in the alleged appeal (Annexure P-6), which he had not taken up in his alleged representation/appeal (Annexure P-5) except for a request for personal hearing. The same in itself cannot be used to direct the respondents to decide the appeal afresh as the petitioner had not even appeared before the Disciplinary Authority even though personal hearing was fixed for 06.07.2010. Moreover, a perusal of both the appeals dated 17.03.2010 and alleged appeal dated 25.02.2011 show that there is no substantial ground, argument or point raised in either of them which may enable this Court to even consider, interfere in the order of dismissal and other subsequent orders. C.W.P. No.12347 of 2011 4 No other ground was raised. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 18.07.2011 JUDGE gurpreet