Civil Misc. No.3152 of 2010 and -1- Civil Writ Petition No.16606 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Misc. No.3152 of 2010 and Civil Writ Petition No.16606 of 2008 Date of Decision:- March 8, 2010 S.M.Sharma ...Petitioner VERSUS Punjab National Bank ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate with Mr.Saurab Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Santosh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. ***** K.KANNAN, J. (ORAL) CM No.3152 of 2010 The CM application is allowed and same is taken on record as R/A. CWP No.16606 of 2008 1. In the writ petition challenging the order of dismissal from service pursuant to charges issued against the petitioner, the senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends, inter alia, that another officer Sh.A.K.Verma, Deputy Manager had been let off with a lesser punishment of compulsory retirement, which enabled him to secure his retirement benefits, while the petitioner alone has been dismissed from service. 2. Learned counsel would refer to article of charges issued against to him which reads as under:- “ARTICLE-I He resorted to reckless financing by sanctioning/disbursing Civil Misc. No.3152 of 2010 and -2- Civil Writ Petition No.16606 of 2008 loans under different schemes of the bank as per details given in the Annexure A-1, during a short span of seven months in blatant violations of bank's & instructions and procedure and jeopardized bank's interests by putting substantial funds of the bank of stake. ARTICLE-II He indulged into malpractice and sanctioned loans/made advances with the involvement of middlemen leading to fraudulent withdrawal of funds from Saving Fund A/c of the borrowers. ARTICLE-III He extended undue accommodation to the borrowers and thereby allowed them to misappropriate substantial funds of the bank. ARTICLE-IV He deviated from bank's instructions and sanctioned loans under different schemes of the bank resulting into misutilization of funds. ARTICLE-V He acted beyond his vested loaning powers in sanctioning loans and did not get his action confirmed from the competent authority. ARTICLE-VI He disobeyed lawful instructions of the higher authorities in the matter of sanctioning loans. ARTICLE-VII He did not observe bank's guidelines regarding submission of control returns/statements and concealed facts from the Civil Misc. No.3152 of 2010 and -3- Civil Writ Petition No.16606 of 2008 controlling authorities.” 3. His contention is that Article-II was found to be not proved and the Enquiry Officer also found that the charge under Article-V had not been proved. The disciplinary authority however, even without considering that Article-V had not been established before the Enquiry Officer, gave no specific reason for differing from the view of the Enquiry Officer and wrongly assumed the charge, to have been established. 4. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the charges against Sh.A.K.Verma were in respect of the very same transaction and refers to Articles of charges lodged against Sh.A.K.Verma, as found in the order of compulsory retirement issued against him. They read as under:- “2.1 He resorted to reckless financing by recommending for sanction loans under different schemes of the bank as per details given in the statement of imputation of lapses, during a short span of seven months in blatant violations of bank & instructions and procedure and jeopardized bank's interests by putting substantial funds of the bank of stake. 2.2 He indulged into malpractice and recommended for sanction loans with the involvement of middlemen leading to fraudulent withdrawal of funds from Saving Fund A/c of the borrowers. 2.3 He extended undue accommodation to the borrowers by making recommendations for sanction of loans and thereby allowed them to misappropriate substantial funds of the bank. 2.4 He deviated from bank's instructions and recommended for sanction loans under different schemes of the bank resulting into misutilisation of funds. 2.5 He did not observe bank's guidelines regarding Civil Misc. No.3152 of 2010 and -4- Civil Writ Petition No.16606 of 2008 submission of control returns/statements and concealed facts from the controlling authorities.” 5. The contention is that the petitioner was the sanctioning authority and Sh.A.K.Verma was the person, who recommended the loans and there was no difference in responsibilities. Therefore, for the same Articles of charge, if Sh.A.K.Verma could be awarded lesser punishment, there is no justification as to why dismissal should have been passed against the petitioner. 6. I find force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, although the learned counsel for the respondent tries to still make out the difference that the responsibilities were not the same. He also highlights the difference in responsibilities with respect to the respective offices held, as contended by him in his written statement. 7. On a prima facie consideration of the case relating to the charges, I have no doubt in my mind that they are similar and the order of dismissal issued against the petitioner is set aside and the disciplinary authority shall consider the case afresh in the light of the punishment awarded to Sh.A.K.Verma and further consider the plea that the petitioner should be treated in the same manner as the other person Sh.A.K.Verma was treated. The decision shall be taken objectively in the light of contentions made and in the light of seemingly congruous charges imputed against the petitioner and Sh.A.K.Verma. The decision shall be taken within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 8. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to make his personal representation before the decision is taken. 9. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. March 8, 2010 (K.KANNAN) Vt JUDGE