IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

136 CWP-6121-2026 Date of Decision: February 26, 2026 Mandeep Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Punjab Gramin Bank and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Anil Ghanghas with Mr. Abhishek Patil, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr. Bhushan Bhatia, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4-Bank.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned suspension order dated 21.05.2024 (Annexure P-2), the order dated 22.05.2024 (Annexure P-3); the impugned charge-sheet dated 29.10.2024 (Annexure P-14); the impugned show cause notice dated 24.01.2025 (Annexure P-16); the impugned final order of punishment dated 04.04.2025 (Annexure P-18) and the impugned appellate order dated 03.11.2025 (Annexure P-20). A further prayer has been made for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw all punishments, treat the suspension period as spent on duty, and release all consequential benefits with arrears and interest.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the very foundation of the disciplinary proceedings is vitiated as the initial suspension order dated 21.05.2024 was passed by the Senior Regional Manager, (SRM) Sh. P.P. Singh, who is not the "Competent Authority" under Regulation 2(g)(ii) read with Regulation 46 of the Punjab Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulations, 2010. It is argued that the Competent Authority for a Scale I Officer is the General Manager, and an order passed by an authority lacking inherent jurisdiction is void ab initio and non est in the eyes of law. He further submits that the proceedings are mala fide and stem from a personal vendetta of the SRM against the petitioner arising out of a dispute regarding the deposit of Rs. 1350/- in a specified bank account. It is argued that the petitioner was called to the Regional Office on 21.05.2024 as part of a pre-meditated plan, and the subsequent change in the suspension order from "insubordination and disobedience" to "misbehaviour/insubordination" on 22.05.2024 itself speaks volumes about the concocted and fabricated nature of the charges. Learned counsel also contends that there has been a gross violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was denied crucial documents despite repeated requests, including the name and designation of the officer who recorded the statements of the witnesses, the report submitted by him, and the CCTV footage of the incident, which would have been the best piece of evidence. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, who are all subordinates of the SRM and whose statements were allegedly obtained under duress and undue influence.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in strict compliance with the Punjab Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulations, 2010. He points out that a proper charge-sheet was issued, the petitioner submitted his reply on 07.01.2025, a show cause notice for minor penalty was issued on 24.01.2025, and a personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner on 13.02.2025. Learned counsel emphasizes that the Disciplinary Authority, in its order dated 04.04.2025, specifically observed that the petitioner "failed to produce any evidence or failed to state any fact through which he could have rebuked the charges alleged against him." It was further noted that seven officials of the Regional Office, namely Ms. Neha Goyal, Ms. Mamta Rani, Mr. Parveen Singh, Mr. Paramjit Singh, Ms. Rupali Arora, Ms. Rupika Yadav and Mr. Satinder Pal Singh, submitted their signed handwritten statements describing the incident, against which the petitioner could produce no contrary facts or d