CWP No. 18208 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 18208 of 2009 Date of decision: 03.12.2009 J.D. Singh, Assistant Manager (formerly Branch Manager, Branch Dujjana), Central Bank of India, Branch office Dhin, Distt. Ambala ....Petitioner Versus Central Bank of India and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Ranjivan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This writ petition is directed against the orders passed by the punishing authority, appellate authority as well as reviewing authority, imposing punishment on the petitioner for the misconduct. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice by the Branch Manager on 23.9.2006 alleging serious misconduct on the ground of irregularities committed by him while he was posted as the Branch Manager at Dujana Branch during the period 2005-06. The petitioner denied the allegations. In view of the stand taken by the petitioner, inquiry was held against the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner was also ordered to be suspended for the misconduct. The petitioner was charged on the following charges: - CWP No. 18208 of 2009 -2- “Charge No. 1 Sh. J.D. Singh, Branch Manager, unauthorisedly abstained himself from his duty, attended the office late, without obtaining the permission of the competent authority. The details of such instances are enumerated in statement of imputation (Annexure II). Charge No. 2 Sh. J.D. Singh has acted in a discorderly manner in handling the cash keys and has not followed the laid down security norms of the bank, exposing the bank at high risk. The detail of such instances is enumerated in statement of imputation (Annexure II). Charge No. 3 Mr. J.D. Singh acted with a malafide intention and claimed a bogus TA bill to get undue financial benefit as detailed in statement of imputation (Annexure II). Charge No. 4 Mr. J.D. Singh has flouted all the laid down norms and procedures of the bank while sanctioning/disbursing of PF loan to Mr. Suresh Ahlawat, Head Cashier, to allow undue financial bnefit to Mr. Suresh Ahlawat, Head Cashier, as detailed in State of Imputation (Annexure II). Charge No. 5 Mr. J.D. Singh has flouted all the laid down norms and procedures of the bank and has allowed excess in OD account under Cent Convenient Scheme to Sh. Suresh Ahlawat Head Cashier as detailed in State of Imputation (Annexure II). Charge No. 6 Mr. J.D. Singh has flouted the laid down norms and has misutilized/abused his official powers in the capacity of the Branch Manager at Dujana Branch as detailed in Statement of imputation (Annexure II). CWP No. 18208 of 2009 -3- Charge No. 7 Mr. J.D. Singh has flouted all the laid down norms & procedures of the bank while sanctioning disbursing the amount as detailed in statement of imputation (Annexure II). Charge No. 8 Mr. J.D. Singh has failed to comply the laid down norms of the bank in calculating of Direct Tax/Income Tax as Branch manager/Employer and violated statutory obligation and thereby caused loss to the exchequer as detailed in statement of imputation (Annexure II). Charge No. 9 Mr. J.D. Singh has engaged himself directly in the business transactions without permission of the competent authority as detailed in statement of imputation (Annexure II). For the above acts of omission and commission Mr. J.D. Singh is therefore charged under Regulation 13(1), 3(1), 6(1) of Central Bank of India Offices Employees (Conduct) Regulation 1976 read with Regulation 24.” The inquiry officer found charges No. 1, 4, 7(iii & iv), 8 and 9 to be partly proved, whereas charges No. 2, 3, 5, 6(i, ii, iv & v) and 7 (i, ii & iii) fully proved, whereas charge No. 6(iii & vi) not proved. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice along with inquiry report. On consideration of his reply and giving him opportunity of hearing, the competent authority imposed the punishment of reversion. The punishment awarded by the competent authority has been affirmed by the appellate authority and reviewing authority. The pleas raised by the petitioner have been considered by all the authorities and finding recorded, that the punishment awarded cannot be said to be CWP No. 18208 of 2009 -4- disproportionate to the charges proved against the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends, that the amount involved is very meagre and furthermore there was no pecuniary loss to the bank, therefore, the punishment awarded is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India being arbitrary. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Serious charges against the petitioner and stand proved. The punishment awarded cannot be said to be disproportionate or arbitrary, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The reading of the order passed by the competent authority, appellate authority and reviewing authority would show that each and every point raised by the petitioner was duly considered and answered. An inquiry was conducted in consonance with the principles of natural justice and regulations, governing the service conditions of the petitioner. No ground, therefore, is made out to interfere with the orders of punishment. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge December 03, 2009 R.S.