Bihari Lal v. Zonal Manager,P.N.B.And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5561 of 1999 ====================================================== Bihari Lal .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

Zonal Manager, P.N.B.& Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

For the Respondent/s :

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-04-2015 The petitioner seeks quashing of an order dated 15.11.1997 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, i.e., the Regional Manager, Ara Region, Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) whereby, he has imposed upon the petitioner punishment of stoppage of one increment. The petitioner had preferred an appeal against the said order of the Disciplinary Authority, which stood dismissed by an order dated 21.02.1998 passed by the Zonal Manager, Bihar Zone of the Bank.

A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner who, at the relevant point of time, was posted as Cashier at Dumraon branch of the Bank. The charge sheet was issued on 09.05.1996 containing two charges. He was charged of having made cash payment in the demand loans fraudulently raised by Shri L. B. Singh, Special Assistant, which was denied by the customer for having received payment on request for such demand loan. He was further charged of having prepared and filled up documents and corresponding vouchers pertaining to demand loans fraudulently raised by Shri L. B. Singh, Special Assistant, which have been denied by the customers/ respective depositors.

Patna High Court CWJC No.5561 of 1999 (3) dt.24-04-2015 2/2 The Enquiry Officer, on the basis of materials available, came to a finding that it was proved in course of departmental proceeding that the petitioner was negligent in discharging his duties. Copy of the enquiry report was supplied to him and his comments were solicited. He submitted his response. The Disciplinary Authority, however, in view of the nature of allegation proved against the petitioner, imposed upon him minor punishment of withholding one increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by an order dated 21.02.1998 rejected the petitioner's appeal. These are the background facts in which the present writ application has been filed.

I have perused the findings of the Enquiry Officer, orders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. The report of the Enquiry Officer and the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority are well reasoned. I do not find any reason to interfere with such orders in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India keeping in mind the nature of punishment imposed upon the petitioner. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.