IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.23209 of 2010 Date of Decision : January 10, 2011. Dalip Kumar .....Petitioner versus Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Amit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner who was working as Field Officer in respondent No.2-Bank and while posted at Abohar, was charge-sheeted vide memo dated 24.2.1988 (Annexure P-1) alleging that 13 loan cases were erroneously recommended by him thereby causing financial loss to the bank. His reply to the charge-sheet was considered and having been found unsatisfactory that a regular departmental enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer vide his report dated 24.2.1998 (Annexure P-2), found the petitioner responsible for verification of 8 loan cases which had caused loss to the bank. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice (Annexure P-3) and after considering his reply that a punishment of stoppage of five annual increments with future effect was imposed on him. C.W.P.No23209 of 2010 . 2 The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal which was also dismissed on 17.8.2000 (Annexure P-5). He thereafter filed a revision petition under Section 69 of the Punjab, Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, which was also dismissed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, vide order dated 2nd March, 2005 (Annexure P-9) after observing that no procedural lacuna in the departmental proceedings could be pointed out by the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. Notwithstanding the delay and latches, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the orders. In my considered view, no case to interfere with the impugned order by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is made out. The enquiry proceedings were conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner being the Field Officer was expected to verify the genuineness, capability and other antecedents of the loanees whose cases he recommended for necessary sanction. As noticed above, the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner responsible for recommending 8 out of 13 cases which led to the causing of financial loss to the bank. That being so, the punishment awarded to the petitioner cannot be said to be grossly improportionate to the nature of the charges framed against him. Dismissed. January 10, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE