The charge against an employee must be specific and not vague, and disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

(Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 11.2.2022 whereby a major punishment was inflicted upon the petitioner as well as the appellate order dated 8.8.2022 whereby the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

3. The brief facts that emerge are that the petitioner was employed as an officer with the respondent-bank. On 14.11.2019, the petitioner was called upon to explain to tender an explanation in respect of the transactions in the statement of account of the petitioner for the period 2015 to 2019. The petitioner submitted a reply to the said explanation vide a letter dated 3.12.2019 stating that the father of the petitioner was suffering a paralytic attack and was on bed since 2009 and on account of medical and family exigencies certain amounts were borrowed from the family members.

4. It is argued, that after the reply was submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 10.2.2021 wherein, it was alleged against the petitioner that the petitioner had made huge transactions of funds regularly in and from her account which are much higher than her salary while working as an officer for the period from 11.8.2015 to 23.1.2019 which would constitute a misconduct in terms of Regulation 3 (1), Regulation 3 (3) and Regulation 20 (4) read with Regulation 24 of the Punjab and Sindh Bank Officers Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 1981 Regulations'). Along with the said chargesheet, the statement of account of the petitioner containing the transactions was appended as the proposed document to be relied upon to substantiate the charges. The single charge leveled against the petitioner is as under:-

"Ms Renu Chaurasiya (PF Code: R16432), Officer is charged for Major Penalty Proceedings under Regulation 6 of the Punjab & Sind Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1981 (as amended time to time) for making huge transactions of funds regularly in and from her accounts much higher than her salary income while working as Officer at branches Rajajipuram Lucknow (L0779) from 11.8.2015 to 20.09.2015, Indra Nagar Lucknow (L0802) from 21.09.2015 to 22.01.2019 & Gomti Nagar Lucknow (L0917) from 23.01.2019 to till date under Lucknow zone as per articles of charges (ANNEXURE-I) based upon Statement of Allegations (ANNEXURE-II). A list of documents by which article of charges are proposed to be substantiated is also enclosed as per ANNEXURE III."

5. The petitioner moved an application dated 8.3.2021 stating that the chargesheet was vague and lacks clarity and the chargesheet is not accompanied by the list of documents and the list of witnesses and prayed that the relied upon documents be supplied so as to enable the petitioner to give a proper reply.

6. In response to the said letter, the respondent-bank gave a reply on 31.3.2021 stating that complete set of documents as mentioned in the list of documents (Annexure No.4) (wrongly referred as Annexure No.4 and appears to be Annexure No.3) in the chargesheet dated 10.2.2021. It was denied that at that stage no list of witnesses was annexed and, thus, a plea taken was found to be unfounded.

7. The petitioner once again wrote a letter stating that the charges are vague and the petitioner is unable to understand the charges. As the petitioner did not submit any reply, in fact, took a ground that the petitioner was being victimised for no fault of hers, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the allegations.

8. The Inquiry Officer submitted his findings on 3.1.2022 recording that on the basis of documents marked as Management Exhibit-1 to Management Exhibit 10311, the allegations with regard financial transactions as evidenced in the statement of account were true. With regard to each transaction, the Inquiry Officer recorded tha