Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. - (1.) PETITIONER , who is working on the post of Manager with the Punjab Gramin Bank has impugned in the present writ petition the order dated 12.3.2009, issued by the disciplinary authority, whereby a penalty of reduction by three stages in the time scale of pay has been imposed upon him. Challenge has also been laid upon the order dated 21.1.2011, whereby the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforementioned order dated 12.3.2009 has been dismissed, thereby affirming the major penalty.
(2.) STATED in brief the facts are that the petitioner while working on the post of Manager at Branch Office, Jahangir, Distt. Amritsar was served with a charge sheet dated 8.1.2007 in respect of certain alleged lapses committed by him. The competent authority having found his reply to the charge sheet as "not satisfactory" passed the order dated 30.3.2007 for holding a regular departmental inquiry under Section 40 of the Punjab Gramin Bank (Officers and employees) Service Regulations (herein after referred to as the 2005 Regulations). An officer of the rank of Senior Manager, Head Office was appointed as Inquiry Officer, who after conducting regular inquiry proceedings furnished an inquiry report dated 16.11.2007 holding the petitioner to be guilty of the various charges levelled against him. Copy of the inquiry report was furnished to the petitioner so as to enable him to raise his submissions/objections thereto. Disciplinary authority after duly considering the submissions made by the petitioner as regards the inquiry report issued a show cause notice dated 29.1.2009, wherein a tentative view was disclosed as regards imposition of a penalty of reduction of three stages in the time scale of pay. The disciplinary authority after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice as also having afforded opportunity of personal hearing to him passed the impugned order dated 12.3.2009 imposing a major penalty of reduction by three stages in the time scale of pay. Such order of penalty has been affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 21.1.2011. Mr. C.M. Munjal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has been heard at length.
(3.) LEARNED counsel submits that the impugned orders have been passed to the detriment of the petitioner and the same are in violation of the principles of natural justice. It has also been contended that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is not even covered under the 2005 Regulations and as a matter of last resort learned counsel takes up a plea that the penalty is disproportionate to the charges levelled and as such is highly excessive.;