1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Mohammed Anees. Versus Punjab National Bank & ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6743/2006 ... Date of Order: January 05, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. V.K. Aggarwal, for the petitioner. Mr. Jagdish Vyas, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: The orders Annx.8 dated 29-3-2004, Annx.9 dated 09-7-2005 and Annx.11 dated 28-3-2006 have been challenged in this writ petition by the petitioner. Briefly stated, the facts which are relevant and necessary for decision of this writ petition are that the petitioner, while working as the Manager with the respondent Punjab National Bank, Sangariya Branch, Sangariya, district Hanumangarh, was served with a Memorandum of Allegation under the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees' (Disciplinary & Appeal) Regulations, 1977 (for short, “the Regulations of 1977” hereinafter). By the order Annx.8 dated 29-3-2004, the 2 charges against the petitioner were found proved and under regulation 4 (e) of the Regulations of 1977 and the petitioner was visited with the penalty of reduction by two stage in the time scale of pay for a period of two years without cumulative effect, which amounts to withholding of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect; against which the petitioner preferred an appeal, which came to be dismissed by the order Annx.9 dated 09-7-2005; against which the petitioner preferred a review petition, which came to be dismissed by the order Annx.1 dated 28-3-2006. Hence this writ petition. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent bank stating therein that the misconduct for minor punishment has been proved against the petitioner and he has been rightly held guilty for the charges levelled against him and the punishment of withholding of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect cannot be said to be disproportionate to that of the delinquency. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that two complainants, viz. Sajida Bano and Ganpati Devi Jangid subsequently filed an application before the Regional Manager of respondent Punjab National Bank vide Annx.2 stating therein that neither the petitioner demanded the illegal gratification, nor received the same and depositing of Rs.500/- 3 each in the bank accounts of Sajida Bano and Ganpati Devi Jangid were made by one Bajrang Lal Bhambhu and, therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority are erroneous. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner granted the loan to Sajid Bano and Ganpati Devi Jangid for the sum of Rs.20,000/- and 12,000/- respectively and the entire loan amount reached to the borrowers. So far as creation of security for the loan amounts is concerned, according to the learned counsel, the loan amount was disbursed to Ganga Ram Bajrang Lal Chaudhary, a Cloth Merchant, Losal, district Sikkar, who is said to have sold the clothes against the loan amount to complainants Sajida Bano and Ganpati Devi Jangid and, therefore, they have received the cloth against the loan amount and, therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents failed to establish the misconduct against the petitioner. So far as depositing Rs.500/- each in the accounts of Sajida Bano and Ganpati Devi Jangid are concerned, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the deposits were not made by the petitioner from his own amount but it was one Bajrang Lal Bhambhu who is said to have deposited the amount in the accounts of those two borrowers. Learned counsel for the respondent bank submits 4 that against the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority holding the petitioner guilty and imposing the penalty of withholding of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and in the appeal, the petitioner requested the Appellate Authority for obtaining the opinion of the Handwriting Expert in respect of the two pay-in slips, by which the sum of Rs.500/- each were deposited in the account of the borrowers Sajida Bano and Ganpati Devi Jangid, which has been placed on record as Annx.R/1. The opinion of the Handwriting Expert was sought and the Handwriting Expert Shri Ashok Kashyap, after comparing the handwritings of the petitioner on various documents, i.e. the admitted signatures of the petitioner, with the disputed handwriting on the pay-in slips Annx.R/1, has opined that the handwritings on the two pay-in slips Annx.R/1 are of the petitioner. Even before the Enquiry Officer as well as the Appellate Authority, Bajrang Lal Bhambhu, a supplier, vide letter dated 24.4.2005, has denied having deposited any amount in various accounts of Sajida Bano and Ganpati Devi Jangid and thus it has been established from the material available before the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority that it was the petitioner who had retained the amount of Rs.500/- each from the loan accounts of the two borrowers Sajida Bano and Ganpati Devi Jangid and subsequently on revealing that 5 complaints have been filed, the petitioner deposited the sum by his own amount by two pay-in slips Annx.R/1 and Annx.R/1 bears the signatures of the petitioner himself, which has been established from the opinion of the Handwriting Expert Shri Ashok Kashyap, which was obtained on the request of the petitioner himself. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to submit a plausible explanation for depositing of Rs.500/- each by the petitioner in the accounts of the borrowers Sajida Bano and Ganpati Devi Jangid under his own signatures. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has also got the opinion of the Handwriting Expert vide Annx.12. From a perusal of Annx.12 and the signatures which have been compared by the Handwriting Expert, it is clear that the petitioner's admitted signatures in the bank have never been made available to the Handwriting Expert who examined the handwriting vide Annx.12 and, therefore, in my view, any opinion expressed by the Handwriting Expert vide Annx.12, after the decision of the Appellate Authority, is of no help to the petitioner and even otherwise, no reliance can be placed on the Handwriting Expert's opinion obtained by the petitioner vide Annx.12. On the contrary, before the Appellate Authority, it was the petitioner himself who had requested the Appellate Authority to get the two pay-in slips examined and compared by the 6 Handwriting Expert and the request of the petitioner, the same were got examined by Handwriting Expert Shri Ashok Kashyap from the admitted signatures/initials of the petitioner with the bank records with the disputed two pay-in slips and the Handwriting Expert opined against the petitioner, prima facie establishing the fact that it was the petitioner who had deposited Rs.500/- each in the borrowers accounts vide Annx.R/1. The punishment imposed against the petitioner is a minor punishment as has been provided under regulation 4 of the Regulations of 1977 and the procedure prescribed vide regulation 8 of the Regulations of 1977 have been fully complied with. In the circumstances, therefore, in my view, no fault can be found with the conclusions arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority as well as the Reviewing Authority. The punishment imposed against the petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate to that of the delinquency. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R. PANWAR), J. mcs