$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11582/2017 SH. RUBAL KHANNA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Ms. Kritika Matta, Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Ms. Shreya Gupta, Ms. Tanya Rose and Mr. Shubham Bahl, Advocates.

versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (HEAD OFFICE) AND ANR.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Vikas & Mr. Utkarsh Bhushan, Advocates for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 05.02.2026

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution assails (i) the order dated 7^th April, 2017 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the major penalty of “dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment”, and (ii) the appellate order dated 28^th August, 2017 affirming the said penalty, communicated thereafter.

Facts in brief:

2. The Petitioner joined Punjab National Bank on 5^th February, 2013 as Manager (Credit) at Central Staff College, Civil Lines, Delhi. He was thereafter promoted as Senior Manager (Credit) and posted at Branch Office, Civil Lines, Delhi. The disciplinary action traces its origin to an audio-visual clipping aired on 20^th December, 2016 on “Aaj Tak” and “India Today”, in which the Petitioner was shown interacting with two individuals in the backdrop of demonetisation, and purportedly offering to facilitate exchange of specified bank notes for new currency.

3. On 20^th December, 2016, the Bank placed the Petitioner under suspension. On the next day, the Petitioner furnished a written explanation. The explanation does not deny the interaction. In the letter, he asserts that two persons approached him under the pretext of a loan, and later started speaking about exchange of notes. He “pretended” to agree, spoke “vaguely”, and referred to commission only to “trap” them, with the asserted intention of getting them caught “red handed”. He further asserts that he had no role in cash operations, and that the branch itself did not have adequate cash supply.

4. The Bank served a charge sheet dated 2^nd February, 2017. The solitary article of charge premised on the televised sting operation is that the Petitioner offered to exchange bank notes in violation of RBI and Bank guidelines, thereby tarnishing the image of the Bank and causing reputational loss, amounting to misconduct under Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct)

Regulations, 1977.

5. The Petitioner participated in the departmental enquiry and denied the charge. The Presenting Officer relied upon three documents, marked as MEx-1 to MEx-3. These were supplied to the Petitioner on 3^rd March, 2017. The parties filed written briefs and the enquiry culminated in a report dated 21^st March, 2017 holding the charge proved. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings and imposed dismissal by order dated 7^th April, 2017. The departmental appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority by order dated 28^th August, 2017.

Petitioner’s Submissions:

6. The Petitioner challenges the disciplinary proceedings and urges that the enquiry suffers from foundational procedural illegality, is unsupported by legally sustainable material, and has resulted in a punishment that is, in any event, wholly disproportionate. The contentions are summarised as follows:

6.1. The principal challenge is founded on Regulation 6(17) of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977. It is submitted that the Regulation imposes a mandatory obligation upon the Inquiring Authority to generally question the charged officer on the circumstances appearing in evidence so as to enable an explanation. This is a substantive safeguard and not a mere formality; its non-compliance vitiates the fairness of the enquiry.

6.2. It is urged that Regulation 6(17) is pari materia to Rule 14(18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Reliance is placed on the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 18^th February 2015 emphasising strict compliance with the corresponding rule. The Petitioner