BALDEV RAJ MAHI Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner has challenged the imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement upon him. Charge sheet was issued to the petitioner containing the following charges:-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that with regard to the charges in respect of which the disciplinary authority had a difference of opinion with the inquiry officer it was necessary to have issued a second show cause to the petitioner. Further he has argued that if there had been no difference of opinion the punishment of compulsory retirement may not have been imposed. His third argument is that this punishment has been imposed under the 'advice of the Chief Vigilance Officer' i.e. the argument is that copies of various suggestions given by various authorities with regard to punishment were not given to the petitioner. In the circumstances the prayer made is for setting aside the punishment order and directing the disciplinary authority to reconsider the matter.

(3.) In my opinion even if arguments No. 1, 3 and 4 are accepted the petitioner would still not be entitled to any relief for the simple reason that the charges in respect of which the petitioner was found guilty by the inquiry officer are extremely serious. In Union of India and another v. S.S. Ahluwalia, 2007 7 SCC 257, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-