LPA No. 1406 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1406 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision 11.8.2011 G.R. Nagar . Appellant Versus Dy. General Manager PNB and ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. NR Dahia, Advocate for the appellant 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 18.5.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the charges against the appellant stood proved in a regular departmental enquiry. It is appropriate to mention that appellant was working as Clerk-cum-Cashier-cum-Godown Keeper in Punjab National Bank. He was served with a charge-sheet on 21.5.1985 imputing allegations of mis-appropriation in connivance with the superior officer in disbursement of some loans for farmers under a scheme for purchase of buffaloes. The charges were that the suppliers of the cattle were fictitious and that some of the account holders themselves were not eligible for the loan. The loan transaction was said to be under a subsidy scheme and the subsidies were literally appropriated by the appellant himself. Before issuance of a charge sheet, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the same Inquiry Officer who was subsequently appointed as such. The appellant was found guilty of the charges in the enquiry which was LPA No. 1406 of 2011 (O&M) 2 accepted by the disciplinary authority. Accordingly, he was removed from service. In an intra-departmental appeal filed by the appellant, the appellate authority has reduced the punishment of removal from service to that of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. 2. Before the learned Single,a number of arguments were raised but all were rejected. The first argument rejected was that preliminary enquiry report which was the basis of the charge sheet was not supplied to the appellant and therefore it resulted into prejudice. The learned Single Judge held that a preliminary enquiry is conducted to ensure that there is some material on the basis of which charges could be framed. If the Inquiry Officer uses his own preliminary enquiry report or he has in the course of proceedings relied on his own findings then there could be a ground for even a suspicion that the Inquiry Officer was biased. The learned Single has rightly placed reliance on a judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sunil Kumar v. State of West Bengal (1980) 3 SCC 304. It has been held in the aforesaid judgement that there was no inference that a person, who had carried out the preliminary enquiry and was appointed as an enquiry officer for a regular departmental enquiry would necessarily be acting both as a prosecutor and a judge. The other argument that a copy of the preliminary enquiry report has not been supplied has also not found favour with the learned Single Judge by holding that if an Inquiry Officer was placing reliance only on a preliminary enquiry report then the question of furnishing of a copy to the appellant would be necessary. The preliminary enquiry report is never an important document unless it is relied upon as has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pandit D. Aser v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007)1 LPA No. 1406 of 2011 (O&M) 3 SCC 445 and Krishan Chander Tandon v. Union of India (1974) 4 SCC 374. 3. The learned Single Judge rejected another argument that suit has been instituted by the bank for recovery from various loanee and therefore there was no possibility of loanee being bogus. The charge sheet makes a specific reference to two persons who were fictitious namely Ramesh Chander and Budh Ram. The buffaloes had not been purchased by these two persons. However the amount was found credited in Account No. 5455 in the name of his wife Sunari Devi and Rs. 1500/- in his own account of the appellant. The charge of misappropriation was directly cast on the appellant for these loans which have been advanced to the two persons. The other argument that superior officers had been exonerated and the appellant alone has been made scapegoat, has also been found to be without merit by the learned Single Judge when it was held as under: “.... The superior officer was a sanctioning authority and therefore, there was a suspicion that he must have connived with the petitioner and hence also implicated. The evidence was collected for the petitioner's active involvement and if they found nothing incriminating against the sanctioning authority, it cannot be urged by the petitioner that since the superior officer was exonerated, he must also be exonerated.” (emphasis supplied) 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at a considerable length and are of the view that extreme penalty of dismissal which was inflicted on the appellant has been reduced to stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect on account of the fact that the enormity of fraud was not such as to warrant the termination. The charge of mis-appropriation LPA No. 1406 of 2011 (O&M) 4 stood proved by the fact that some portion of the amount sanctioned as loan was credited in saving bank account of the appellant or his wife. The appeal is a frivolous piece of litigation and was avoidable. Accordingly the appeal does not merit admission and the same is hereby dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Gurdev Singh) 11.8.2011 Judge okg