LPA 224of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.224 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision 8 .2.2011 Ramesh Kaura ... Appellant Versus Punjab National Bank, New Delhi and others... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present: Mr. Parveen Gupta ,Advocate for the appellant 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant appeal is directed against judgement dated 21.1.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge holding that the writ petitioner- appellant has oblique motive to challenge the procedure of holding enquiry mid-stream with the allegation that the principles of natural justice have not been followed. The petitioner-appellant was issued a charge sheet on 21.4.2010 and Inquiry Officer was appointed by the respondent bank who asked the petitioner- appellant to verify the documents from the originals on 28.8.2010, 10.9.2010, 20.9.2010 and lastly on 24.9.2010. The petitioner-appellant had confirmed the compliance of having inspected the listed documents. He was also allowed inspection of loan files before filing of his written statement of defence. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from the concluding but last para of the order which reads thus: “So far as the aspect of inspection of documents is concerned, it is noticed that Enquiry Officer had advised LPA 224of 2011 2 the petitioner to verify the documents from the original on 28.8.2010, 10.9.2010, 20.9.2010 and lastly on 24.9.2010. As observed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner had confirmed compliance of having inspected the listed documents. The petitioner was also allowed inspection of loan files before he submitted his written statement of defence. The petitioner had taken five days for referring the records before submitting his defence statement. In his defence statement, the petitioner has not made any grievance that he was not provided any relevant record. From the above, it is clear that this petition has just been filed to prolong the proceedings and there has not been any violation, which would call for any interference at this stage. The enquiry proceedings are still in progress and certainly no case for interference with the enquiry proceedings at this stage is made out as there has been no violation of any procedure.” We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant at some length who has argued that there is patent violation of Regulation 6 of Punjab National Bank Officers employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977 (for brevity 'the Regulation') in so far as the documents have not been supplied. We have gone through Regulation 6(13) and (14) of the Regulations and find no stipulation in these regulations obliging the disciplinary authority to supply copies of documents as per the claim made by the learned counsel. The disciplinary proceedings are in progress. The petitioner- appellant can raise all objections with regard to violation of any of the provisions of Regulation before the Inquiry Officer or may take the LPA 224of 2011 3 advantage of such lapses at the time of conclusion of enquiry or at the stage he files an appeal or revision before the authorities. With the aforesaid liberty, we do not find any valid ground to interfere with the enquiry proceedings at this stage. The appeal is wholly without merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (T.P.S.Mann ) 8.2.2011 Judge okg.