W.P.(C) 2447/2019 Page 1 of 3 $~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2447/2019 & CM APPL. 20806/2025 SHRI MOHD. AZMATULLAH MOBEEN .....Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person. versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Mr. Anant Gautam, Ms. Likivi Jakhalu, Mr. Deepanjal Chaudhary, Mr. Kushagra Nilesh Sahay and Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Advocates for Bank. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 08.04.2025 1. By way of this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner assails a Disciplinary Order dated 29.12.2018, by which a minor penalty [reduction to two stages lower in the time scale of pay until the date of his superannuation, i.e. 31.12.2018, without cumulative effect and without adversely affecting his pension] was imposed upon him. 2. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent – Bank, a preliminary objection was taken that the Disciplinary Order is amenable to appeal under Regulation 17 of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977 [“Regulations”]. 3. As against this objection, in the rejoinder affidavit, it is only This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2025 at 15:57:23 W.P.(C) 2447/2019 Page 2 of 3 contended that the remedy of appeal is not available to the petitioner as he has superannuated on 31.12.2018. 4. The said contention is, in my view, without merit. The order passed against the petitioner was passed while he was in service under Regulation 4(e) of the Regulations. Regulation 17 of the very same Regulations provide for an appeal, inter-alia, against any of the penalties specified in Regulation 4. 5. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, learned counsel for the Bank, also submits that this reading of Regulation 17 accords with the Bank’s contention. Thus, any appeal filed by the petitioner will not be rejected on the ground that he has superannuated. 6. I have also examined the nature of the allegations against the petitioner in the Disciplinary Order, and the grounds raised in the petitioner’s challenge. The charges include non-compliance with an order of suspension dated 22.01.2018, and attempts by the petitioner to enter the office premises to mark his attendance, as well as specific allegation of dereliction of duty assigned to him. These contentions, involving disputed facts and interpretation of service rules, are better suited for adjudication before the Appellate Authority than in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority under Regulation 17 of the Regulations. If the appeal is filed within a period of four weeks from today, the respondents are directed to consider the same in accordance with law, notwithstanding the fact that it was not filed within the period prescribed in the Regulation. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2025 at 15:57:23 W.P.(C) 2447/2019 Page 3 of 3 8. All pending applications stands disposed of. PRATEEK JALAN, J APRIL 8, 2025/SS/SD/ This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2025 at 15:57:23