The court upheld the principle that the punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of misconduct and not unduly harsh or vindictive.

RANJIT SINGH, J. - Having been appointed as a Clerk on 7.11.1973 at Punjab National Bank, Agra, the petitioner was promoted as Officer Scale I at Ahmedabad on 7.4.1980. With effect from 15.1.2001, the petitioner was promoted as Manager and joined as such at Ghariyala Branch, District Tarn Taran (Amritsar). On 17.11.2004, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Charge sheet, Annexure P-1, was served upon him on 30.8.2005. This relates to his working as Manager at Ghariyala, District Tarn Taran (Amritsar). The enquiry was held and Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.11.2006. On the basis of the finding of Enquiry Officer, the petitioner was removed from service on 18.10.2007, with stipulation that it was not to be treated as a disqualification for future employment. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 11.2.2008. He also filed a review petition before the Executive Director-cum-Reviewing Authority, which was also dismissed on 30.5.2008. The petitioner has now filed this writ petition to impugn the punishment.

2. While arguing before this Court, the petitioner restricted his prayer only qua the quantum of punishment, as can be seen from the order dated 26.2.2009, which is as follows:-

“Learned counsel states that the petition is not pressed as against the charges, enquiry report, order passed by the Appellate Authority or order passed on Review Application filed by the petitioner.

Learned counsel, however, states that because it stands established that no loss has been caused to the Bank on account of the conduct of the petitioner, the penalty imposed i.e. of removal, is harsh. Under the circumstances, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner prays for milder punishment. Notice of motion only on the issue of penalty, for 18.5.2008.”

3. The petitioner accordingly has been heard only on the quantum of sentence.

4. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that there is no loss to the Bank and the charges related only to his function as a Manager of the Bank while sanctioning certain loans. As per the counsel, the loan was sanctioned after due appraisal and approval by the assisting staff members, who were equally responsible but they were let off lightly. Accordingly, the submission is that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is harsh and so would call for interference. Counsel for the petitioner would also refer to the fact that some of the charges even could not be established but despite these uncertain findings and without specifying as to what were those charges, the Disciplinary Authority has awarded the punishment. Thus, as per the counsel, the punishment imposed can not be termed as proportionate to the allegations made.

5. In the reply filed, the respondents have taken various preliminary objections. It is stated that the petitioner has filed this petition by concealing facts. The main premise that the charges are unspecified and unidentified is denied and it is stated that the charges were specific and categorized in the charge sheet. A detailed charge sheet alongwith list of witnesses was supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner had not placed on record the complete charge sheet issued to him and accordingly the complete charge sheet was annexed with the reply as Annexure R-1. Rather, it is pointed out that the petitioner is also facing a challan filed against him by the CBI Court at Patiala. The allegation of fraud was thoroughly investigated and it was found that the petitioner had entered into a criminal conspiracy with Gurmit Singh, Clerk/Cashier, Punjab National Bank, Gharyala and outsiders with the object to misappropriate the funds and cheat the Bank. In pursuance to the said criminal conspiracy, the petitioner sanctioned different loans and caused wrongful loss to the bank and corresponding gain to himself and other persons. A complaint in this regard was lodged to CBI, Chandigarh and case was registered against him and accused Gurmit Singh, Clerk. The petitioner is