IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 225 CWP-37570-2018 Date of decision: 30.07.2025 GEETA DEVI ......Petitioner VERSUS UCO BANK AND OTHERS .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ ***** Present: - Mr. Amarpreet Singh, Advocate for Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Malika, Advocate for Mr. C.S. Bakshi, Amicus Curiae. Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate for Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate for the respondent-UCO Bank. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present writ petition was to the order whereby punishment of stoppage of one increment without cummulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. It is further reveals from the case file that notice of motion has not been issued so far in the matter even though a period of nearly 07 years elapsed. Vide order dated 21.12.2018, the following academic issue was framed for an adjudication before notice of motion is to be issued: “Before the notice of motion is issued in the present case, the question which needs to be VISHAL SHARMA 2025.08.02 13:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-37570-2018 -2- decided is as to whether, once an order of punishment had become final after the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority, was there any jurisdiction with the National Commission for Scheduled Caste to entertain an application in respect of the said punishment and give directions to the appellate authority to reconsider the matter. It is only after this question is declared, this petition can be entertained in respect to the challenge raised by the petitioner to the impugned order.” Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that he has no further instructions in the matter. However noticing the minor punishment of stoppage of one increment had been imposed upon the petitioner and Counsel for the petitioner has made an affirmative statement that he has no further instruction to pursue the matter. It seems that the petitioner himself is not interested in contesting the order of punishment. The exercise to be undertaken on the question framed vide order dated 21.12.2018 would thus only be an academic exercise. While keeping the said question open, the instant writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JULY 30, 2025 JUDGE Vishal Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No VISHAL SHARMA 2025.08.02 13:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document