Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:112304 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9501 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rinku Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akshara Rai Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Verma,C.S.C.,Sujeet Kumar Rai Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Ms. Akshara Rai, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Amit Verma, learned counsel for respondent. 2. In present case, petitioner is an employee of respondent-Bank on the post of Employee Varg-III. Admittedly, he has made wrong entries, which was detected by IT Cell of concerned Bank and was corrected, therefore, no financial loss was occurred. Thereafter petitioner suffered a disciplinary proceeding and he accepted his guilty and made an explanation that he was not well aware about the procedure of entry, therefore, an error was erupted. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that prayers made in this petition are not happily worded and she has not challenged the order dated 26.06.2018, whereby petitioner was suffered with a penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. She further submits that claim of prayer No.2 was wrongly mentioned since his appeal was rejected on ground of delay. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that quantum of punishment may be interfered. 5. Learned counsel for respondent submits that petitioner was lethargic and he has submitted an appeal after about five and a half years, therefore, it was rejected on laches, and he opposed the prayer of interfering with punishment as petitioner has accepted his guilty. 6. I have considered the above submission and ignoring the shortcomings in prayers, and exercising the powers granted under Article of 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner is permitted to made an amendment to challenge the punishment order dated 25.06.2018 during the course of day. 7. I have considered above submissions that there was an explanation that petitioner was not well aware about the method of entries, therefore, an error was committed though it was corrected by IT Cell of concerned Bank and no financial loss was occurred. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, considering that petitioner has accepted his guilty, therefore, punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is interfered and it is directed that from the date of order of this Court, order of punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect would be read as 'stoppage of increment for 2 years only'. 9. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observation. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 P. Pandey Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad