CWP No.7276 of 1989 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.7276 of 1989 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.09.2011 Sh. B.K. Badyal, Officer, Regional Office, Punjab National Bank, Bathinda. ... Petitioner Versus Punjab National Bank through its Chairman, 5-Parliament Street, New Delhi and others. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1 The petition challenges an order of reversion made to an Bank employee, who was charged with misconduct of having been not prudent in the discharge of duties and he had not taken sanctions before approving certain loans and he had also failed to secure post facto sanctions for loans, which he ought to have obtained, thereby jeopardizing the bank's interest. While the proof on charges 1 and 2 had been rendered, the charge of failure to obtain post facto sanction was found to have been not established. The disciplinary authority reverted him from the post as MMG Scale-II to JMG Scale-I. CWP No.7276 of 1989 (O&M) [2] 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the disciplinary authority took a decision without serving a notice of report of the Inquiry Officer. Considering the fact that the report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer in the year 1987, the issue of non-supply of Inquiry Officer's report has vitiated the proceedings, as laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in “Union of India and others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan” cannot apply. Ramzan Khan's case was stated to be prospective in its application by the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in “ECIL v. B. Karunakar,1993(5) SCC 532”, that is, applicable to orders of punishment passed after 29th November, 1990. Since, in this case, the order of punishment was rendered on 29.10.1987, the contention that the order was visited by non-supply of the Inquiry Officer's report, cannot be sustained. 3. The issue of monetary loss or prejudice is not what is relevant when the Inquiry Officer found that the petitioner had failed to exercise due diligence and failed to follow the instructions relating to secure post facto sanctions before approving loans. I cannot, therefore, also accept the contention that the charge had not been established, since prejudice was not proved. Even without reference to the prejudice if, the instructions have been shown to be violated, it has only to be taken that the charge had been clearly established. 4. That leaves only the issue of whether the punishment rendered was capricious and so serious as to shock the conscious of the Court. Normally, if the case were to have come up for hearing immediately after its institution, it would have been possible for parties to reconsider the decision. I am loath to substitute the decision on punishment, which the disciplinary authority has taken. I cannot find anything CWP No.7276 of 1989 (O&M) [3] seriously wrong or capricious to make an intervention. 5. The impugned order is sustained and the writ petition is dismissed. SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE