$~65 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Decision delivered on: 11.09.2024 + LPA 410/2023 & CM APPL. 53223/2024 PUNJAB AND SINDH BANK .....Appellants Through: Mr. Rajat Arora, Advocate versus SH. RAJ KUMAR .....Respondents Through: Mr. G. S. Chaturvedi, Advocate CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

CM APPL. 53223/2024

1. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant seeks permission to withdraw the present application since this Court, with the consent of counsel for the parties, has taken the appeal for final disposal. The present application is, accordingly, disposed of.

LPA 410/2023

2. By way of the present appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent, the appellant has sought the following relief:

“stay the operation of the judgment dated 03.02.2023 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in WP (C) No. 11034/2017 till the disposal of the present appeal.”

3. Undisputed facts are that the respondent joined the appellant 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.

4. The case of the respondent before the learned Single Judge was 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, the respondent was promoted as Manager on 30.04.2008 and subsequently as Senior Manager in MMGS-III Scale on 12.09.2011.

5. However, the respondent 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. The respondent filed an appeal against the penalty of dismissal but the same was rejected on 24.07.2015 and the Review Petition also met the same fate on 30.12.2015.

6. Being aggrieved, the respondent challenged the aforesaid orders before the learned Single Judge.

7. It is important to note that when the writ petition was pending before the learned Single Judge, the allegations, in the charge-sheet issued to the respondent, inter alia were that he in connivance with Shri Gurjant Singh, Officer and Shri Sukhdev Singh, Gunman and Shri 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. Accordingly, Departmental proceedings were initiated against Shri Gurjant Singh and Shri Sukhdev Singh and the respondent herein, on charges being proved, the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of lowering by two stages on Shri Gurjant Singh, while Shri Sukhdev Singh was compulsorily retired. The respondent was, however, awarded the punishment of ‘dismissal’ from service. In the appeal before the learned Single Judge, the respondent alleged bias against one Shri Saminder Singh, respondent No.4 therein and discrimination in awarding higher punishment compared to the co-

delinquents, but no relief was granted to him.

8. It is pertinent to mention that on the first date of listing of the writ petition before the learned Single Judge on 12.12.2017, the said Court had disposed of the petition by 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 respondent, in light of Regulation 4 of the Punjab and Sind Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981, and on principle of parity with the co-delinquents. The said order was challenged by the respondent before the Division Bench of this Court in LPA