CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 15828 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 15828 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 19, 2011 Nirmal Singh Chauhan .....Petitioner VERSUS General Manager, Central Bank of India and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. S.C. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. HC Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. In the year 2007, the petitioner was posted as Assistant Manager with the respondent-Bank at Branch Pahra, Palampur (HP). A charge-sheet was served upon him containing the allegation that during his tenure at Palasaur (Tarn Taran), he did not exercise due care and diligence while processing and recommending a loan on 20.6.1998 and on 7.6.1999 for a sum of ` 50,000/- and ` 25,000/- in favour of one Kanwar Pal Singh. The petitioner was also accused with the allegation that he had sanctioned an amount of ` 10,000/- in favour of Kanwarpal Singh without any third party's guarantee. This loan amount could not be fully recovered from Kanwarpal Singh leading to financial loss of the Bank. The respondent-Bank had also lodged an FIR against the petitioner on the same allegation. The plea taken by the petitioner was that loan CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 15828 of 2008 -2- was recommended by the then Branch Manager Mr. SK Bawa and Mr. R.C. Rabra respectively after receiving the verification report from Assistant Field Officer. The plea is that the petitioner was neither Assistant Field Officer nor Branch Manager and had simply filled the application forms of the loanee and has been proceeded against because the Branch Manager Mr. SK Bawa had died and Mr. RC Rabra had retired. The petitioner, accordingly, pleads that the punishment of reversion, which was imposed after holding an inquiry, cannot be sustained. In response to notice of motion, reply is filed. The punishment imposed upon the petitioner is justified on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, which was produced during the inquiry. The additional submission is made to the effect that the petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by filing this writ petition because of his subsequent conduct. It is stated that after reversion of the petitioner, he was posted at Branch office Haroli, where he had defrauded the bank to the tune of ` 14.50 lacs by his fraudulent acts and by conniving with one Mr. Bhullar. The petitioner is stated to be in Police custody for the said fraud. This fact was pointed out to the counsel for the petitioner on 21.2.2011. Counsel for the petitioner had then controverted this fact by pleading that he had not been informed of any such position. It was then pointed out to him that the reply had been filed in April, 2009 and copy of the same was also available with him. He had not made any effort either to file rejoinder to deny this fact nor had taken any pains to contact his client. Counsel at that stage had prayed for time to ascertain the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 15828 of 2008 -3- factual position. On his request, the case was adjourned accordingly, but it was subject to the condition that in case, it is found that the petitioner in fact has been taken in custody, the writ petition would be liable to be dismissed with costs. Counsel for the petitioner today says that despite efforts he has not been able to contact his client and thus, is not in a position to ascertain the contents of the reply as filed. Despite punishment of reversion the petitioner has not shown any improvement in his conduct. Rather he is now accused of fraud and is stated to be in custody. The grounds urged by the counsel to challenge the punishment of reversion primarily is on merits of the allegation. It is not within the purview of this Court to appreciate factual position to interfere in the action. The petitioner has no case in equity. His subsequent conduct and action would be enough to decline relief and a sufficient cause for me to refuse interference by way of extra ordinary remedy. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, I am resisted from passing the order for imposing the costs. April 19, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE