CWP-9351- IN TH 127+212 Purshutam G State of Hary CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. Constitution order in the n (Annexure P pay scale of the retiremen which the st 1 -2015 (O&M) N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA C Date of tam Goel VERSUS f Haryana and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for t Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl. AG H Mr. Bhushan Bhatia, Advocate f **** REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has bee tution of India with a prayer for issu n the nature of certiorari for quashing ure P-1), order dated 02.04.2014 (An ale of the petitioner has been reduced irement of petitioner and order dated 2 the statutory appeal of the petitione NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH CWP-9351-2015 (O&M) ate of Decision: January 29, 2026 .....Petitioner SUS ...Responden E HARPREET SINGH BRAR e for the petitioner. . AG Haryana-State. ocate for respondents No.3 to 5. as been filed under Article 226 of the or issuance of an appropriate writ or ashing charge sheet dated 03.05.2013 14 (Annexure P/3-B) vide which the duced by 21 stages after one year of ated 20.08.2014 (Annexure P-5) vide titioner has been dismissed. Further, itioner ondents of the rit or .2013 ch the ear of ) vide rther, PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.12 19:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9351- praying for a release all th annum. 2. petitioner join Gramin Bank 07.04.1981 a superannuatio his retiremen on the ground at Lakarpur 20.05.2011. sanctioning carrying out loans, 33 loa serving the c levelled again 2.1 recommended exonerated o officer were authority ag imposed maj 2 -2015 (O&M) g for a writ in the nature of mandam all the retiral/pensionary benefits al Learned counsel for the petition ner joined the services on 14.08.1979 a n Bank. Thereafter, he was promoted t 981 and ultimately retired from the nnuation i.e. on 31.05.2013. To the ut rement, he was issued charge sheet da ground that he made improper recomm arpur Branch from 01.03.2011 to 1 011. Further, it was alleged that ing of 42 loans during the deputation g out proper appraisal of the concerne 33 loans accounts were irregular/ove the charge-sheet, petitioner filed his d against him vide reply dated 30.05.20 Learned counsel further subm ended disciplinary action against the ated on six charges out of ten charge were placed before the punishing ity agreed with the recommendatio d major punishment of reduction of damus directing the respondents to fits along with interest @ 18% per etitioner, inter alia, submits that the .1979 as Clerk with the respondent(s) oted to the post of Officer Scale-1 on the service on attaining the age of the utter surprise before few days of eet dated 03.05.2013 (Annexure P-1) ecommendations for sanction of loans 1 to 15.04.2011 and 10.05.2011 to that petitioner had recommended utation period at Palla Branch without ncerned loan proposals and out of 42 lar/overdue as on 15.05.2012. Upon led his reply denying the allegations 0.05.2013 (Annexure P-2). submits that the inquiry officer nst the petitioner on four charges and charges. The findings of the inquiry ishing authority and the punishing ndation of the inquiry officer and ion of pay scale by 21 stages from nts to % per at the ent(s)- 1 on age of ays of 1) loans 11 to ended out of 42 Upon ations fficer es and nquiry ishing r and from PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.12 19:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9351- Rs.29700/- against the o punishing au disciplinary a 2.2 petitioner is have recomm additional ch been regulari loans were gr petitioner w recommended controverted highly dispro 3. the disciplina with the spec by recommen thereby expo inspection re were based o commensurat integrity and 3 -2015 (O&M) to pay scale of Rs.14500/-. The t the order of punishing authority. Vi ing authority rejected the appeal an inary authority. Learned counsel for the pe ner is having 35 years of unblemishe ecommended sanctioning of 42 lo nal charges at Palla Branch and out o egularized and for 13 accounts the ba ere granted against collateral security ner was not the sanctioning auth ended the sanctioning of the lo verted by the respondent-bank. As su disproportionate. Per contra, learned counsel for ciplinary action was warranted as the e specific mandate to effect recoverie mmending 42 loans outside his domai exposing the bank to significant fi tion report. Further, the the procedure ased on evidence, and the imposed pen nsurate with the gravity of the prove ty and to the detriment of the bank's in . The petitioner preferred his appeal ity. Vide order dated 20.08.2014 the eal and upheld the decision of the he petitioner further submits that emished service and he is alleged to 42 loans while he was given the out of the 42 loan accounts 29 have the bank has suffered no loss, as the ecurity. It is further submitted that the authority, whereas, he has only he loans, this fact has not been As such, the punishment awarded is sel for the respondents submitted that as the petitioner, while on deputation coveries, instead misused his position domain in concert with other officers, cant financial risk as detailed in the edure followed was fair, the findings ed penalty of pay-scale reduction was proven misconduct of acting without nk's interests. appeal 4 the of the that ed to n the have as the at the only been ded is d that tation sition ficers, in the dings n was ithout PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.12 19:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9351- 4. petitioner su available on petitioner wa whereas sta from 25.03.2 liable for eith officer has m The petitione providing all not provided reply of petiti 5. through the statement of various acts, officer at Pall agains for sa deputa 15.05.2 4 -2015 (O&M) In rebuttal to the respondents ner submitted with reference to th le on record at page 40 of the pap ner was given the additional charge o s statement clearly shows that all 42 5.03.2011 till 16.05.2011. As such, for either sanctioning or recommendi mis-red the evidence and has not titioner raised an objection even befo ing all the details of the accounts in qu vided nor any opportunity was grant f petitioner (Annexure P-3/A). I have heard the learned coun h the case file with their able ass ent of charges (supra) laid down again s acts, omissions and commission alleg at Palla Branch. The details of the sam “1. That in disregard t ainst the instructions of the Region r sanction as many as 42 loans putation there. Of 42 loans, 33 loa .05.2012. The concerned 42 loan dents' stand, learned counsel for the to the charges recorded which is he paper book and submits that the arge on 02.12.2011 (Annexure P-6), all 42 loans were sanctioned started such, the petitioner cannot be held mending all these loans. The inquiry as not considered the contextual facts n before the disciplinary authority for s in question. However, the same was s granted to him, as discernible from d counsel for the parties and gone le assistance. It transpires that the against the petitioner with respect to n allegedly committed by him as field he same reads as under:- rd to the laid down procedure and egional Manager, he recommended oans at Palla Branch during his loan accounts were overdue as on oan accounts involved outstanding or the ich is at the 6), tarted held quiry s. ity for e was rom gone at the to s field and ded his s on ding PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.12 19:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9351- amoun thousa 2. lending bank fu That d Bank t as on 1 By his under Grami The de agains Statem 1. loans a The C 23.03.2 During aforesa sanctio apprai that ou on 15.0 Sr. No. Loan A No (Old 1 GGB(M 296 2 297 3 298 4 299 5 300 6 301 5 -2015 (O&M) ount of Rs.2,72,86,225/- (Two cro ousand two hundred twenty five) onl That he recommended 1 nding norms of the Bank. The con nk funds to the extent of Rs.81,03,97 at due to aforesaid lapses on his p nk to the risk of financial loss to th on 15.05.2012. his aforementioned acts, CO hav der regulations 18 and 20 read wit ramin Bank (Officers and Employees e details of the charges and the c ainst him are given in the statement atement of imputations In the matter of improper rec ans at Palla Branch. e CO was on deputation to Pala .03.2011 to 15.04.2011 and also fr uring his working on deputation as s oresaid period it was alleged agains nction of as many as 42 loans praisal of the concerned loans prop at out of 42 loans A/Cs, 33 loans a 15.05.2012; details of which is men n A/c (Old Loan A/c No. (New) Borrower B(M) 21052162216 Hargovind 21052162227 Subhash 21052162238 Neetu & Shilpi 21052162249 Jitender & Anita 21052162250 Laxmi Rai 21052162261 Rahul crore seventy two lac eighty six only, as on 15.05.2012. ed 14 loans in gross violation of concerned loan accounts involved 3,979/- only as on 15.05.2012. his part the C.O have exposed the to the tune of Rs.3,53,90,204/- only, have committed gross misconduct d with regulation 39(1) of Gurgaon yees) Service Regulations, 2010. the circumstances supra appearing ent of imputations hereinbelow: recommendations for sanction of Pala Branch for the period from so from 10.05.2011 to 20.05.2011. as such to the Palla Branch for the ainst him that he recommended for ans without carrying out proper proposals. It has also been alleged ns accounts were irregular/over as mentioned hereunder:- Date of loan Amt of loan Balance 25.03.11 800000 877139 26.03.11 800000 881221 28.03.11 2000000 1934021 29.03.11 800000 787153 29.03.11 1200000 1365748 30.03.11 2000000 2249090 six n of lved the nly, duct aon ring n of from 011. r the for oper eged r as PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.12 19:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9351- 7 302 8 303 9 304 10 305 11 306 12 307 13 308 14 309 15 310 16 311 17 312 18 313 19 314 20 315 21 316 22 OPS 282 23 2823 24 OSL 303 25 305 26 306 27 307 28 308 29 SBL 231 30 2315 31 2316 32 2317 33 Veh N 62 34 63 35 64 36 65 37 66 38 67 39 68 40 69 41 70 6 -2015 (O&M) 21052162272 Manoj Kumar 21052162283 Kirti Bindal 21052162294 Narender Goel 21052162307 Surender Kumar 21052162318 Ruma Devi 21052162329 Prem Lata 21052162330 Dharamvir Dangi 21052162341 Ravinder & Meena 21052162352 Sunita 21052162363 Manohar 21052162374 Satyabir 21052162385 Vijay Banjwal 21052162396 Gajraj & Savitri 21052162409 Charanjeet Singh 21052162410 Mudit Arora 2820 21052167190 Jitender 21052167225 Bhabha Grahi 303 21052169346 Shahin Begam 21052169368 Meena Gupta 21052169379 Meera 21052169380 Beena 21052169391 Sita Mishra 2314 21052169856 Satish Chand 21052169867 Jai Rani 21052169878 Simmi Arora 21052169889 Sudesh Kumari NPS 21052170907 Munni Kumari 21052170918 Anuj Sharma 21052170929 Brij Mohan 21052170930 Ishwar Singh 21052170941 Som Pal 21052170952 Narender Nath 21052170963 Sunita Malik 21052170974 Vinod Kumar 21052170985 Sat Pal Singh 30.03.11 2000000 2109151 30.03.11 1000000 104989 30.03.11 2000000 1835224 15.04.11 1000000 966755 10.05.11 500000 567753 11.05.11 500000 447713 13.05.11 1300000 1414916 13.05.11 2000000 1850255 14.05.11 900000 861430 16.05.11 700000 588421 16.05.11 800000 751355 16.05.11 700000 619580 20.05.11 1100000 1148621 20.05.11 900000 871536 20.05.11 1000000 980765 31.03.11 55000 50457 15.04.11 90000 0 26.03.11 200000 204923 30.03.11 300000 270078 31.03.11 300000 262198 10.05.11 300000 282965 20.05.11 200000 222105 26.03.11 100000 111302 26.03.11 50000 52490 11.05.11 100000 93293 16.05.11 60000 58095 12.03.11 150000 139592 18.03.11 250000 0 28.03.11 300000 130151 31.03.11 200000 159650 31.03.11 330000 113789 06.04.11 650000 565660 07.04.11 450000 446891 06.05.11 330000 317659 14.05.11 300000 276164 PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.12 19:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9351- 42 71 of afor as muc By the worth shown On the 1. 2. toward 3. miscon of Gu Regula 6. conclusive fi resulted in a has only reco pay scale by a retired emp 7. limited. It is Article 226 o 7 -2015 (O&M) 21052170996 Lalit Kumar Total It was also alleged that the CO aforementioned loans in violation o much as he did not conduct proper the aforesaid irregularity on his p rth Rs.2,72,86,225 only to the finan own above. n the basis of the above, it was allege That he had acted in gross misus That he had acted with lack wards the bank. That he had acted to the detrime For his aforementioned acts th isconduct under Regulations 18 and Gurgaon Gramin Bank (Office gulations, 2010.” It transpires that respondents ha sive finding or material to demonstra d in a quantifiable financial loss to th ly recommended and not sanctioned an le by 21 stages is a severe penalty, im d employee for life. The scope of interference in d . It is settled law that this Court may 226 of the Constitution of India wh 16.05.11 400000 315927 27286225 CO recommended for the sanction ion of lending norms of the Bank in per appraisal of the loan proposals. is part he had exposed bank funds inancial risk in the 42 loan A/Cs, as lleged against the CO as under: isuse of his official position. lack of integrity and faithfulness riment of interests of the Bank. ts the CO was charged with gross and 20 read with Regulation 39(1) fficers and Employees) Service nts have failed to place on record any onstrate that the alleged misconduct ss to the Bank. Further the petitioner ned any of these loans. A reduction of lty, impacting the financial security of e in disciplinary proceedings is very t may only exercise its powers under dia when the findings recorded in a tion k in sals. unds s, as ness ross 9(1) vice rd any nduct ioner ion of rity of s very under d in a PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.12 19:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9351- disciplinary illegality, or that the findin conducted in justice, and th 8. Hon’ble Supr (1997) 3 SC following obs “20. A such c therein jurisdi instanc becaus reason the pu of an had se these d this to AIR 19 Venkat SCR 5 SCC 7 v. Unio 23 ATC 8 -2015 (O&M) inary action are arbitrary, disproporti ty, or manifest prejudice. The Court findings are justified by the material ted in compliance with prescribed pro , and the penalty imposed is proportion Further reliance may be placed le Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corpn 3 SCC 72 while speaking through J ing observation, 0. At the outset, it needs to be me ch cases of departmental enquiri erein does not exercise the powers o risdiction of the High Court in s stance where it is found that the cause of non-observance of princip asonable opportunity; findings are e punishment is totally disproportio an employee. There is a catena of d settled the law on this topic and i ese decisions. Suffice it to refer to a is topic viz. State of A.P. v. S. Sree R 1963 SC 1723 : (1964) 2 LLJ nkata Rao [(1975) 2 SCC 557 : 19 R 521] , Corpn. of the City of Na C 714 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 455 : (198 Union of India [(1992) 4 SCC 711 ATC 382 : AIR 1992 SC 1981] .” roportionate, tainted with procedural Court must confine itself to ensuring terial on record, the proceedings were ed procedure and principles of natural ortionate to the misconduct. laced on a Three Judge bench of the orpn. Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Arora ugh Justice S.P. Kurdukar made the mentioned that the High Court in uiries and the findings recorded rs of appellate court/authority. The in such cases is very limited for t the domestic enquiry is vitiated nciples of natural justice, denial of are based on no evidence, and/or ortionate to the proved misconduct a of judgments of this Court which nd it is not necessary to refer to all to a few decisions of this Court on ree Rama Rao [(1964) 3 SCR 25 : LJ 150] , State of A.P. v. Chitra : 1975 SCC (L&S) 349 : (1976) 1 f Nagpur v. Ramchandra [(1981) 2 (1981) 3 SCR 22] and Nelson Motis 711 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 13 : (1993) edural suring s were atural of the ora, de the rt in rded The or ated l of d/or duct hich o all t on 25 : itra 6) 1 1) 2 otis 993) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.12 19:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9351- 9. U.P. (1982) commensurat 10. Ram v. State Desai observ 11. Thakur v. U Justice M.N. offence and t 12. imposed upo a just and established a significantly canons of fai fundamental The principle “suit the off 9 -2015 (O&M) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 982) 3 SCC 346 held that the nsurate with the gravity of the offence A Two Judge Bench of the Hon tate of H.P 1983 (2) SCC 442, whil bserved, “15. ……It is equally true tha commensurate with the gravity any penalty disproportionate to would be violative of Article 14 A Two Judge Bench of the H v. Union of India 1987 (4) SCC M.N. Venkatachaliah observed that “ and the offender.” The doctrine of proportionalit d upon a delinquent employee in disc and reasonable relationship to th shed against them. A punishment whic cantly disproportionate to the proven of fair play and reasonableness but al ental right to equality under Article 1 ciple further extends to ensure that t he offence and the offender,” thereb urt in Rama Kant Misra v. State of t the punishment must always be ffence charged. he Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagat , while speaking through Justice D.A. that the penalty imposed must be ravity of the misconduct, and that te to the gravity of the misconduct 14 of the Constitution…..” the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ranjit SCC 111, while speaking through that “But the sentence has to suit the ionality mandates that any penalty in disciplinary proceedings must bear to the gravity of the misconduct t which is excessive, unwarranted, or proven charges not only offends the but also constitutes a violation of the rticle 14 of the Constitution of India. e that the sanction must be tailored to thereby requiring an individualized te of ys be agat D.A. t be that duct anjit rough t the enalty t bear nduct ted, or ds the of the India. red to alized PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.12 19:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9351- assessment o employee’s s aggravating f 13. responsible o appropriate t met if the pu purpose of ce 14. impugned or reduction of petitioner is m from the mo issuance of t dated 20.08.2 revise the pe per annum, realization. the petitioner a certified co 10 -2015 (O&M) ent of the nature of the misconduct, t ee’s service record, and the absence ating factors. However, keeping in view the sible officer and some lapse may ha riate to quash the entire proceedings. the punishment is modified to a prop e of censure without being unduly hars Accordingly, the present writ p ned order dated 02.04.2014 (Annexur on of 21 stages of pay scale after ner is modified to the extent of impos he monthly pension for a period of f e of the original order (i.e., 02.04.2 20.08.2014 (Annexure P-5) is also se the pension of petitioner and release t , from the date of filing the Further refund any excess amoun itioner. The needful be done within a p ied copy of this order. duct, the attendant circumstances, the bsence or presence of extenuating or w the fact that the petitioner was a ay have occurred, it would not be dings. The ends of justice would be a proportionate one, which serves the ly harsh. writ petition is partly allowed. The nexure P-3B) imposing a penalty of after one year of the retirement of imposing penalty of deduction of 5% d of five (5) years from the date of 2.04.2014) is substituted. The order also set aside to this extent. Further, lease the arrears with interest @ 6 % the present petition till its actual amount if it has been recovered from hin a period of six weeks of receiving es, the ing or was a ot be ld be es the . The lty of ent of of 5% ate of order rther, 6 % actual from eiving PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.12 19:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9351- 15. disposed of. January 29, P.C 11 -2015 (O&M) Pending miscellaneous applicat ed of. ry 29, 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : plication(s), if any, shall also stands (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No stands RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.12 19:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document