Cav Judgment:

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application praying for quashing the order dated 8.8.2025 issued under the signature of the Zonal Manager–cum–Disciplinary Authority of the Punjab National Bank whereby the petitioner was removed from service, for a direction to the respondents to pay all the consequential benefits in terms of the direction issued vide order dated 29.11.2024 passed in CWJC no.9367 of 2015 and for other reliefs.

3. The case of the petitioner is that at the time when he was posted as Manager of the Jamui Branch Office of the Punjab National Bank, he was proceeded against in a departmental proceeding.

4. A memo of charge dated 6.12.2013 was served on the petitioner. The charges were to the effect that the petitioner had sanctioned and disbursed loan facility to various borrowers under different schemes of the Bank without observing the Bank’s extant guidelines regarding KYC compliance, genuineness of the LPCs, eligibility criteria, end-use verification, recommendation of the 2nd man and obtention of proper documents leading to complete breakdown of Bank’s systems and procedures. Further charges were that he had disbursed large number of loans through few dealers/suppliers without ensuring competitive price, he had passed various fake TA bills for cash remittance and had resorted to heavy cash transactions in his own as well as accounts of his family members beyond his known source of income.

5. The petitioner submitted his reply on 9.12.2013 and an inquiry report was submitted on 18.1.2014 finding several charges to have been proved and others to have been partially proved.

6. By order dated 31.1.2014 passed by the Assistant General Manager–cum–Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner was imposed with a major penalty of removal from service which was not to be a disqualification for future employment.

7. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by order dated 29.8.2014 passed by the General Manager (Personnel Administration Division)–cum–Appellate Authority.

8. The petitioner challenged the order of punishment as also the order rejecting his appeal by filing CWJC no.9367 of 2015.

9. By judgment dated 29.11.2024, CWJC no.9367 of 2015 was allowed, the order of penalty was quashed and the disciplinary authority was directed to proceed afresh and complete the inquiry proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order. It was further observed that if the respondents fail to complete the disciplinary proceedings within six months from the date of receipt, in that event the disciplinary proceedings would stand terminated.

10. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the departmental proceeding commenced on 27.1.2025 and finally concluded on 23.4.2025. On being directed by the inquiring authority, the Presenting Officer submitted his written brief on 12.5.2025.

11. The disciplinary authority served a copy of the inquiry report dated 30.6.2025 on the petitioner along with his letter dated 7.7.2025, to which under coercion the petitioner submitted his written brief on 25.7.2025.

12. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in complete defiance of the direction of the Court to complete the proceedings within a period of six months, the respondents continued with the proceedings which lead to the petitioner filing a contempt application (MJC no.2731 of 2025). In the contempt application, the respondent-Bank submitted their show-cause bringing on record a copy of the order dated 8.8.2025 of the Bank by which it had imposed the major penalty of ‘removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment’ ignoring the fact that the petitioner had already superannuated way back on 31.1.2014 itself. It was further submitted that with the time fixed by the Court in its order dated 29.11.2024 having expired, the Bank could not have passed the order of punishment on 8.8.2025 without getting an order of extension from the Court.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the order of punishment is also bad for the reason that no second show-cause notice was served on the petitioner, the documents asked for by the petitioner for enabling him to give an effective reply were not supplied and the punishment of removal imposed upon the petitioner was disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. It is thus submitted that the order impugned be set aside and the writ application be allowed.

14. The application is opposed by learned counsel appearing for the Punjab National Bank. Referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Bank, it was submitted that the petitioner was proceeded against under Regulation 6 of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977 for the lapses/irregularities committed by him while posted at Branch Office Barhat for the period from 14.8.2006 to 25.10.2010 and at Branch Office Jamui for the period from 26.10.2010 to 11.2.2013. It was submitted that the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any procedural impropriety, illegality and irregularity in the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and thus the order of punishment does not warrant any interference. Learned counsel submitted that in the inquiry conducted the charges levelled were found to be proved. Inspite of the best efforts of the Inquiry Officer, as the proceedings were not going to be concluded because of the delay caused by the charge-sheeted Officer, the respondents filed MJC no.1868 of 2025 on 15.5.2025 praying for extension of time, however the matter could not be listed as the Hon’ble Judge was sitting in the Division Bench. The proceedings continued and in the inquiry with respect to the charges while the petitioner was posted at Branch Office Barhat, out of the nine charges six were found to be fully proved while three charges were found to be partially proved. With respect to the charges when the petitioner was posted at Branch Office Jamui, out of the eight charges four were found to be fully proved while four were found to be partially proved. As such after giving a second show-cause notice to the petitioner along with a copy of the inquiry report and considering the material on record the petitioner was imposed with the order of punishment on 8.8.2025, impugned herein. It was submitted that there is no merit in the instant application and thus the same be dismissed.

15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

16. The relevant facts in brief are that a departmental proceeding was started against the petitioner with the memo of charge being served upon him on 6.12.2013. The same proceeded ending in an order of major penalty of removal from service which was not to be a disqualification for future employment being passed by the disciplinary authority on 31.1.2014. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also rejected by the appellate authority on 29.8.2014.

17. The petitioner moved this Court in CWJC no.9367 of 2015 challenging the order of his removal as also the dismissal of his appeal. The writ application was allowed by judgment dated 29.11.2024 (Annexure-P/8) passed in CWJC no.9367 of 2015.

18. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 29.11.2024 is reproduced herein below for ready reference :-

                  “3. Today, learned counsel for the respondents on instruction submitted that there is a violation of sub-regulation 5 of Regulation 6 of Punjab National Bank of Officer and Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1977 (for short ‘Regulation, 1977) in not providing the list of documents and list of witnesses as is evident from the statement made by the Presenting Officer. In order to overcome this violation, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that gist of the charge itself reveals which are the documents. Therefore, the disciplinary authority need not comply sub-regulation 5 of Regulation 6 of Regulation, 1977. If it is the stand of the respondent-Bank in that event there was no occasion to serve list of documents subsequent to appointment of Presenting Officer on 20.03.2013, therefore, the aforementioned contention of the respondent-Bank is not tenable.

                  4. Accordingly, the petitioner has made out a case, the impugned order dated 31.01.2024 (Annexure-5) is set aside reserving liberty to the respondent-Bank to proceed afresh from the defective stage in the event of any financial loss caused to the Bank or if the allegations are relating to alleged fraud committed by the petitioner since this Court is quashing the impugned penalty order and consequential order only on technicality in the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of ECIL vs. B. Karunakaran reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 and Chairman-cum-Managing Coal India Ltd. vs. Ananta Saha and Ors. reported in (2011) 5 SCC 142. Paragraphs 46 to 50 reads as under:-

                  ………………………………

                  5. The procedure laid down in the aforementioned decision have been reiterated in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Prabhat Kumar reported in 2022 Live Law SC 736 to the extent that if the Courts are quashing the penalty order on technicality and the alleged charges are of financial irregularities or serious charges in such circumstances matter is required to be remanded to the disciplinary authority concerned to proceed afresh from the defective stage. Therefore, the disciplinary authority is hereby directed to take such necessary steps and complete the inquiry proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner is hereby directed to co-operate in the inquiry proceedings. The concerned authority shall pass further orders of consequential benefits, if any, to the petitioner depending upon outcome of the final orders to be passed in departmental inquiry. Such order shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of final order to be passed. If the Respondents fail to complete disciplinary proceedings within six months from the date of receipt, in that event disciplinary proceedings stands terminated.

                  6. With the above observations, the present writ petition stands allowed.”

19. From the contents of the judgment dated 29.11.2024 it would clearly be evident that while setting aside the order dated 31.1.2014 (wrongly typed as 31.1.2024 in the judgment), the Court granted liberty to the respondent-Bank to proceed afresh from the defective stage. However the liberty granted to the Bank was on the condition that if they fail to complete the disciplinary proceedings within six months from the date of receipt, in that event the disciplinary proceedings shall stand terminated.

20. It is case of the petitioner that he submitted a copy of the judgment dated 29.11.2024 before the concerned authority/respondent-Bank through registered post on 11.12.2024 and by order dated 31.12.2024 (Annexure-P/10) the Bank proceeded to appoint the Inquiring Authority, Presenting Officer and also serve Annexure-III i.e. part of the memo of charge comprising of the list of documents and witnesses.

21. It is thus evident that the Bank received the copy of the judgment dated 29.11.2024 passed in the writ application on or before 31.12.2024. As such they had to complete the disciplinary proceedings before 30.6.2025 or else, as directed by the Court the disciplinary proceedings would stand terminated. Though it is the case of the respondent-Bank that the proceedings could not be completed within six months on account of the fault of the petitioner, however the same is a bald statement not supported by any material document.

22. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the Bank that before the expiry of the period of six months, the Bank had filed an application for extension of time, however once again, it is not in dispute that no order was passed on the said application and the time fixed for concluding the disciplinary proceedings by order dated 29.11.2024 was not extended.

23. At this stage it would be relevant to refer to and rely upon the judgment in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Prakash Singh; 2025 (2) PLJR (SC) 331, relevant portion of which is reproduced herein below for ready reference :-

                  “7. The present case tasks us to decide the following issues: -

                  (iv) Whether the enquiry not having been completed within the time stipulated by the Tribunal in its order dated 23rd January, 2014, the disciplinary proceedings could have been continued beyond May, 2014? And

                  … … … … … … … … … ...

                  64. The answer to the fourth issue, in view of our discussion, has to be in favour of the respondent and against appellant. Without an extension of time, no order of punishment could have been validly made and the grievance of the respondent in this behalf is absolutely legitimate.”

24. Both the parties have further made submissions as has been noted in the argument of the learned counsels recorded in paragraph nos.12 and 14 herein above.

25. The Court is not dealing with the same for the reason that in view of the categorical order of this Court as contained in judgment dated 29.11.2024, the disciplinary proceeding not having been completed by the respondent-Bank within six months from the date of receipt of the order and the Bank not having been able to prove on the basis of materials on record that it was the petitioner who was at fault for the delay, the order of punishment passed after the expiry of the period of six months is unsustainable.

26. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 8.8.2025 passed under the signature of the Zonal Manager inflicting upon the petitioner the major penalty of ‘removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment’ is hereby set aside.

27. The writ application is allowed with all consequential benefits.