Civil Writ Petition No. 18561of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 18561of 2009 Naveen Arora ...Petitioner Versus Punjab & Sind Bank, Chandigarh & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. B.B. Bagga, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Jagdeva, Advocate, for Mr. J.S. Sathi, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner has joined the services of the respondent- Bank as an Apprentice Clerk on 12.2.1975. Later on, he was confirmed and thus, was promoted as an officer in the grade of a Junior Management Scale-I on 16.8.1997. The petitioner claims to have served with honestly for 31 years. The petitioner was served a show cause notice on 18.10.2006. The petitioner alleges that the allegation did not directly or indirectly suggest any fraudulent or criminal intention on his part. The notice reflected only transaction in the account of the petitioner with some other account holders of the Bank. In reply, the petitioner had pointed out to the circumstances and stress suffered by him for which he happened to make these transactions in question with Civil Writ Petition No. 18561of 2009 -2- concurrence of the account holders. The petitioner, however, was placed under suspension on 18.11.2006 and was served a chargesheet on 28.9.2007. When asked to plead to the allegations made against him in the chargesheet, the petitioner clearly and categorically admitted the truthfulness of the allegations. On that basis, the petitioner was compulsorily retired by way of punishment. The admission being categorical, clear and unambiguous was rightly accepted. The appeal and other representations filed by the petitioner were rightly rejected these being without any merits. The petitioner has now filed this writ petition to challenge the order of his compulsorily retirement. The allegations against the petitioner are for diversion of funds from the accounts of 11 customers to his personal Bank account involving Rs. 5,80000/-. He had admitted his mistake in reply to show cause notice. Thereafter, he admitted the charges during enquiry. In view of the facts as noticed above, especially taking into account the clear admission made by the petitioner, no case for interference in the punishment of compulsorily retirement is made out. Having admitted his guilt, the petitioner cannot be permitted to to turn around to challenge either the finding or the punishment as imposed. The petitioner, in addition, has also made a grievance that the subsistence allowances for the period he has remained under suspension before he was compulsorily retired, have not been Civil Writ Petition No. 18561of 2009 -3- validly considered. In fact, this was the precise reason for which the Court had issued notice of motion on 4.12.2009. However, I find that no grievance is raised in this regard in the petition. The prayer is to set aside the order of punishment and then to release the salary after adjusting subsistence allowances. Once the punishment has been upheld, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as prayed. Dismissed. February 17, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE