$~5

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

LPA 256/2019

AKASH ARYA

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Shanker Raju and Mr. Nilansh

Gaur, Advs.

versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Rajat Arora, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.

1.

The appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned

Single Judge dated 12.03.2019 in W.P.(C) 2908/2016, has preferred the

present intra-court appeal.

2.

The facts relevant for deciding the present appeal as culled out from

the record are that the appellant joined the respondent no.1-bank as a

Management Trainee on 26.02.1990 and rose to the position of Manager.

While, he was posted as Manager, PNB Branch Office, Civil Lines, Aligarh,

a charge-sheet bearing no. CO:BSR:DAC:AA was issued to him by the

Disciplinary Authority under the Regulation 6 of PNB Officer Employees

(Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977 („PNB Regulations, 1977‟), for

allegedly having committed lapses/irregularities during his posting as

Manager, PNB Branch Office, Kasana, District Gautam Budh Nagar. The

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004301

charge-sheet enumerated the following two charges:-

“ARTICLE-1

sanction various loans without recommendations of 2^nd

ARTICLE-2

bank's interest.”…

3.

In the statement of imputation of charges, charge-I comprised 43 sub-

charges whereas under charge-II there was only one imputation. The

charges are essentially of procedural lapses committed by the appellant

while sanctioning various agricultural loans.

4.

The appellant filed his reply to the charge-sheet denying the

allegations levelled against him.

5.

The departmental proceedings initiated against the appellant

culminated in an adverse report dated 09.10.2012. The Inquiry Officer held

that the second charge against the appellant has not been proved. In respect

of the first charge, the inquiry officer held that only 36 sub-charges out of 43

charges stood proved against the appellant. Copy of the inquiry report was

provided by the Disciplinary Authority to the appellant for making his

representation. The appellant made a representation against the inquiry

report but the Disciplinary Authority did not favour his representation and

he was inflicted with a major penalty of “Removal from service which shall

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004301

not be a disqualification for future employment”by an order dated

30.05.2013. While imposing the major penalty, the Disciplinary Authority

opined as under:

“Keeping in view the enquiry findings and gravity of proven

Accordingly, in view of the seriousness of large number of

lapses/ irregularities in the branch which have resulted in

financial loss to the bank reported around Rs. 2 crore due to

violation of bank guidelines and practices by the charge sheeted

employee; I decide to impose major penalty of “Removal from

service which shall not be a disqualification for future

employment” in terms of regulation 4(i) of Punjab National Bank

Shri Akash Arya.”

6.

Against the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the appellant

preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, specifically pleading as

under:

The DA has mentioned about the reported loss of 2 crores.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004301

There is no charge to this effect nor there is any document in

the enquiry in this regard.”

7.

The Appellate Authority concluded that the Disciplinary Proceedings

were conducted in terms of the provisions of the PNB Regulations, 1977 and

the findings of the Inquiry Officer were based on evidence adduced in the

inquiry. On the plea of alteration of penalty, the Appellate Authority

observed as under:

confirm the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.”

8.

The Review Petition subsequently sub