IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 7321 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 15.05.2009 Bhupinder Singh Bains .... PETITIONER Versus Punjab & Sind Bank and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. K.S. Bassi, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner, who was working as Manager in Punjab & Sind Bank, has filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 8.11.2008, passed by the Reviewing Authority, whereby the penalty of `Dismissal' awarded by the Disciplinary Authority has been modified to the penalty of 'Compulsorily retirement' in terms of clause 4 (h) of Punjab & Sind Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as `the Bank Regulations'). In this case, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for acts of omission and commission committed by him during his tenure as Manager, Branch Office 22 No. Phatak, Patiala, from 21.7.2003 to 24.7.2006. A charge sheet containing 22 charges was served CWP No. 7321 of 2009 -2- upon him. On those charges, an enquiry was ordered on 25.1.2007 and Chief Manager, Zonal Office, Patiala, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The said enquiry was completed in 29 hearings and the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 16.11.2007 found that most of the charges were proved against the petitioner. During the enquiry, the petitioner was given fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself. After the enquiry, a show cause notice was issued along with the enquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the said enquiry report and reply of the petitioner, imposed the penalty of `Dismissal from Bank's services' against the petitioner, providing opportunity of hearing to him, in terms of clause clause 4 (j) of the Bank Regulations. A perusal of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, copy of which has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-3, reveals that each and every contention raised by the petitioner was considered and thereafter, in view of the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the aforesaid punishment was awarded. The said order of penalty was upheld in appeal filed by the petitioner. Against those orders, the petitioner filed review petition, which was partly allowed and the order of punishment was modified, as indicated above, while observing as under :- “I observe that the allegations levelled against the petitioner were proved during the enquiry. He has rightly been held guilty of violation of bank norms and exposing the bank to pecuniary obligation and loss. There has been flagrant violation of rules CWP No. 7321 of 2009 -3- of business and definite failure on the part of the petition to adhere to laid down guidelines and take usual precautions, which eventually led to fraud. Had he adhered to prescribed guidelines and remained vigilant, the fraud could have been averted. The proven misconduct does not permit the Bank to retain such officers in service. Although the petitioner had exhibited gross negligence and his acts of omission and commission reflect breach of equitable duty, yet record reveals that he was not directly involved in the fraud. It is also fact that the officer involved in the fraud, when posted to other branch again committed fraud. Considering this a case of gross negligence but having no apparent involvement in perpetrating wrong to the bank. I feel inclined to give some relief to the petitioner by way of modifying the penalty from Dismissal to Compulsory Retirement.” After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the aforesaid order, I do not find any ground to interfere in the same, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Reviewing Authority itself has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not directly involved in the fraud, though he was found to be grossly negligent in discharge of his duty. He submits that in view of the said finding, the modification of the penalty of `Dismissal' awarded by the Disciplinary Authority to the penalty of 'Compulsorily Retirement' is also unreasonable and arbitrary and in-proportionate to the guilt of the petitioner. I do not find CWP No. 7321 of 2009 -4- any force in this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. In the enquiry, various allegations of omission and commission levelled against the petitioner and irregularities committed by him, while working as Incharge of the Branch Office, have been proved. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not given fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the enquiry. The Reviewing Authority has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has been guilty of violation of bank norms and exposing the bank to pecuniary obligation and loss. It has also been found that there has been flagrant violation of rules of business of the bank, which eventually led to fraud with the bank. It has been observed that had the petitioner adhered to prescribed guidelines and remained vigilant, the fraud could have been averted. It has been further observed that normally on the proven misconduct of an employee, the bank does not retain such officer in the bank, but in the instant case, by taking a lenient view, the Reviewing Authority has already modified the penalty of `Dismissal' awarded by the Disciplinary Authority to the penalty of 'Compulsorily Retirement'. I am of the opinion that the Reviewing Authority has already taken a lenient view. At the time of passing of the impugned order, the petitioner had already completed 57 years of age. Keeping in view these facts, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. May 15, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE