I.P. Mahendru v. Punjab National Bank & ORS

$~48 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 6146/2016 I.P. MAHENDRU ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.Ashok Bhalla, Advocate.

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr.Rajat Arora, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

Ms.Poonam Kalia, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

Mr.R.V.Sinha and Mr.A.S.Singh, Advocates for Respondent No.3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

O R D E R

% 22.09.2016 It is the petitioner's case that on 30.08.2001, the Rajya Sabha was informed that a major penalty had been imposed upon the petitioner and other officers. In subsequent proceedings, the petitioner was exonerated of the charges against him in terms of this Court's order dated 14.05.2015 in W.P.(C) No.2499/2209, which reads as under:- "1.

Detailed orders were passed on 05.3.2015 & 08.4.2015, whereby the petitioner only sought exoneration and he gave up any monetary benefits which he would get on account of exoneration. The board of directors of the respondent no.2/Bank has now taken a decision on 07.5.2015 to accordingly agree to the undertaking of the petitioner that by exonerating him, he

will not claim any monetary benefits, and which decision is reiterated by both the parties before this Court today. 2.

In view of the above, this petition will stand disposed of by petitioner being exonerated of the charges made against him in the chargesheet, but the petitioner will not claim any monetary benefits pursuant to his exoneration from the respondent no.2/Bank.

3.

The letter of the respondent no.2/Bank dated 11.5.2015 attaching therewith the decision of the board of directors dated 07.5.2015 is taken on record. 4.

The petition is disposed of accordingly."

Now, the petitioner wants that the records of the Parliament be altered.

Such prayer cannot be granted as the records of the Parliament cannot be directed to be altered by the Court. In view of this Court's order dated 14.05.2015 recording the exoneration of the petitioner, nothing is to be published by the Bank in its Annual Report etc. Mr. R.V. Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Central Vigilance Commission, states upon instructions, that there is no current list in which the name of the petitioner is shown as a person who has been punished or whose name is pending for any disciplinary proceedings. No further orders are required in the petition. The petition is disposed off in the above terms. NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 sb