JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. This writ petition was filed by the Petitioner assailing orders dated 25.11.2014, 24.07.2015 and 30.12.2015 and seeking reinstatement with all consequential benefits. Writ of Mandamus is sought for directions to the Respondents/Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’) for releasing an amount of Rs.6,19,814/- to the Petitioner, kept in the Sundry Creditor (Suspense) Account in the Bank.

2. Factual matrix to the extent relevant and as brought forth by the Petitioner is that Petitioner joined the Bank on 11.06.1987 and worked as a Clerk/Cashier till February, 1993. On being promoted as an Officer on 01.03.1993, he was transferred to various Branches of the Bank between 1993 to 2008.

3. Petitioner avers that he was instrumental in averting a fraud involving Rs.19.20 lakhs at one of the Delhi Branches of the Bank, for which he was given an Appreciation Letter. On account of his excellent track record, Petitioner was promoted as Manager on 30.04.2008 and subsequently as Senior Manager in MMGS-III Scale on 12.09.2011.

4. As the chronology goes, Petitioner was placed under suspension on 23.12.2011, due to certain allegations and on 08.09.2012, show- cause notice was served upon him, to which he filed a detailed reply. This was followed by issuance of a charge sheet on 26.09.2013, pursuant to which Departmental Inquiry was held, which culminated into punishment of ‘dismissal’ on 25.11.2014. Appeal filed by the Petitioner against the penalty of dismissal was rejected on 24.07.2015 and the Review Petition also met the same fate on 30.12.2015. All these orders have been challenged by the Petitioner before this Court.

5. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that in the charge-sheet issued to the Petitioner, the allegations inter alia were that he in connivance with Sh. Gurjant Singh, Officer and Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Gunman and Neel Kamal, Officer debited excess amounts to some irrelevant accounts on certain dates for personal gains, took away/stole certain records of the Bank, credited amounts of unavailed KCC limits to earn interest, cancelled the drafts of the customers and credited the amounts to irrelevant accounts, etc. Departmental proceedings were initiated against Sh. Gurjant Singh and Sh. Sukhdev Singh also and on charges being proved, the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of lowering by two stages on Sh. Gurjant Singh, while Sh. Sukhdev Singh was compulsorily retired. Petitioner was, however, awarded the punishment of ‘dismissal’ from service. In the Appeal, Petitioner alleged bias against Respondent No.4 herein and discrimination in awarding higher punishment compared to the co-delinquents, but no relief was granted to him.

6. Before proceeding further, it would be pertinent to mention that on the first date of listing of the writ petition on 12.12.2017, this Court had disposed of the petition setting aside the orders dated 24.07.2015 and 30.12.2015, with a direction to the Appellate Authority to award appropriate penalty to the Petitioner, in light of Regulation 4 of the Punjab and Sind Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981, on principle of parity with the co-delinquents. This order was challenged by the Petitioner before the Division Bench in LPA No. 708/2018 to the extent the Court had not gone into the merits of the matter, as according to the Petitioner he was innocent and the charges had been wrongly proved. The appeal was allowed and the Division Bench directed the writ Court to examine the matter on all aspects.

7. When the matter was taken up today, at the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, submits that for various reasons including his age and prolonged litigation, Petitioner does not wish to pursue the case on merits of the disciplinary proceedings and restricts the challenge only to quantum of punishment, on ground of parity with co-delinquents who have been awarded lesser punishments for similar charges. Learned counsel for