Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51206-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 258 of 2025 Appellant :- Rajendra Kumar Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Manvendra Nath Singh,Virendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Pashupati Nath Tripathi Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. This appeal is filed by the writ petitioner challenging the disciplinary action taken against him as affirmed in appeal. The writ has not been entertained by the learned Singh Judge on the ground that the writ petition itself was filed after five years. Learned Single Judge has further observed that no good cause for delay has been furnished in the writ petition. The petition, accordingly, has been dismissed as barred by laches. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that sufficient reasons existed on record for not approaching the Court earlier and that petitioner was entitled to an opportunity of hearing in respect of his grievance, on merits, before the learned Single Judge. 3. Although a careful perusal of the averments contained in writ shows that no reasonable explanation has been offered for the inordinate delay occasioned in filing of the writ petition, yet this Court has proceeded to examine the matter on merits, as well. The records reveals that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was employed as a Class-III employee at Jaspura Branch of Allahabad Bank. Disciplinary action was initiated against him with service of a chargesheet on the ground that the appellant has misappropriated Group Insurance Fund and various transfer transactions were debited to facilitate misappropriation of funds lying in those accounts. The chargesheet was served upon the appellant and a detailed enquiry was conducted in the matter. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 24.5.2019 in which misconduct attributed vide Article of Charge Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27 were found fully proved, whereas Article Nos. 4, 8, 9, 12, 13, 17, 19, 23 and 24 were found partially proved. The only charge, which was not proved, was Article No.21. The disciplinary authority has complied with the requirement of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as a copy of enquiry report has been served upon the charged employee and his explanation has been taken into consideration, whereafter the order of punishment has been passed against the petitioner. The punishment awarded to the petitioner is removal from service with superannuation benefits i.e. pension and/or provident fund and gratuity, as would be due otherwise under rules or regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment. The punishment order was in terms of Clause 6(b) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.4.2002. This order has been unsuccessfully challenged in appeal. The appellate authority has also taken note of the submission advanced on behalf of appellant. 4. We have perused the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, as affirmed in appeal and from its perusal it is apparent that a fair procedure consistent with the principles of natural justice has been followed before imposing the punishment upon appellant. Even otherwise, it appears that the appellant was not dissatisfied with the punishment imposed upon him and that is why no challenge was laid to the punishment order for almost 5 years. It appears that only at the stage when criminal action has proceeded against the guilty persons that the writ petition has been filed. In the writ petition, there is absolutely no explanation offered by the petitioner for the delayed approach to this Court in challenging the order of punishment. 5. From the materials placed on record, we find that the view taken by learned Single Judge not to interfere in the matter otherwise does not call for any interference, as in the opinion of the Court, a fair procedure has been followed before the punishment came to be imposed upon the petitioner. In the grounds of appeal also, the petitioner has not been able to substantiate that principles of natural justice or the rules regulating the holding of enquiry was violated in any manner. The charge levelled against the petitioner is otherwise of misappropriation of funds, which is serious enough to warrant imposition of punishment upon the petitioner. In that view of the matter, we refuse to interfere in the present appeal, which accordingly fails and is dismissed. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Anil Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad