WP(C) No.7880/2009 Page 1 of 3 * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Writ Petition (Civil) No.7880/2009 Date of Decision : 30.03.2009 Karunapati Pandey ……Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person Versus Uco Bank & Ors. …….Respondents Through: Mr. Victor Vaibhav Tandon for Ms. Shilpa Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 4. Mr. C.M. Manaktala, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? NO V.K. SHALI, J. 1. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for quashing the order of punishment dated 11th February, 1998 imposed by the respondent /Bank. 2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was proceeded departmentally under Regulation 3(1) of UCO Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 and UCO Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 on account of having credited a sum of Rs.4 crores in the account of Sh.Harshad S.Mehta in respect of which a cheque was issued by IFCO to the UCO bank for purchase of units issued by UTI. The respondent/Bank after holding a domestic enquiry against the petitioner imposed a punishment of dismissal according to WP(C) No.7880/2009 Page 2 of 3 the Rules vide order dated 31.10.1998. This order has been wrongly mentioned by the petitioner in the prayer clause as order dated 11th February, 1998. An appeal against order dated 31.10.1998 was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 27.5.1999. 3. The petitioner has now woken up from deep slumber and has challenged the said order of dismissal in the present writ petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that another co-delinquent namely Sh.Sunil Gorawara posted at Kolkata as Sr. Manager had approached Kolkata High Court against the domestic enquiry against him which has culminated into imposition of punishment of warning only and therefore, on the basis of parity, the petitioner should have also been visited with a lesser punishment. 5. Another ground which has been urged by counsel for the petitioner for invoking the writ jurisdiction by this Court is to the effect that the CVC has also observed that the petitioner was not the sole person responsible for such illegal transfer of funds in the account of Sh.Harshad S.Mehta. 6. I have considered the submission of the counsel and perused the record. Without going into the merits of the submission made by counsel for the petitioner, I feel there is inordinate delay and latches in filing the writ petition inasmuch as admittedly the punishment of dismissal has been imposed on 31.10.1998 and the appeal against the said dismissal order has been rejected on 27.5.1999 and the present writ petition is being filed almost after a decade without any justification whatsoever. WP(C) No.7880/2009 Page 3 of 3 7. For these reasons, the present writ petition is totally misconceived as it is hit by inordinate delay and latches and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. V.K. SHALI, J. March 30, 2009 RN