WRIT PETITION 1576 of 2023 on 22 July 1998

1. The Punjab National Bank Through its Chief Vigilance Officer/C.P.I.O.,PNB, Head Office, 7 Bhiaji Cama Place, New Delhi- 110066 namely VijayKumar Tyagi.PNB, Head Office, 7 Bhiaji Cama Place, New Delhi- 110066 namely VijayKumar Tyagi.

2. The General Manager, Punjab National Bank, 5 Parliament Street, HeadOffice, Delhi namely Mr. Mahesh Dhawan.Office, Delhi namely Mr. Mahesh Dhawan.

3. The Chief Manager, Personnel Division, Head Office, New Delhi namelyMr. Amit Bundela.Mr. Amit Bundela.

4. The Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank, Bihar Zone, Patna having itsoffice Near R. Block, Patna namely Mr. Purna Chandra Bahera.office Near R. Block, Patna namely Mr. Purna Chandra Bahera.

5. The Divisional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Divisional Office BiharStaff at Nalanda namely Mr. Satya Priya Das.Staff at Nalanda namely Mr. Satya Priya Das.

... ... Opposite Party/s

======================================================Appearance :For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv.For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Adv.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH and and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGHORAL ORDER

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)

29-04-2025 The facts of the present case are manifest inasmuchas though the original writ petitioner was made to retire underRegulation 4(h) of the Punjab National Bank OfficerEmployees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Regulations’) and furtherpunishment was imposed under Rule 15(3)(b) of theRegulations by an order dated 22.07.1998 and thereafter, even the appeal was rejected by an order dated 23.10.1999, however,the original writ petitioner approached the writ court by filing awrit petition in the year 2014 bearing CWJC No. 1429/2014 i.e.after 16 years, hence, the learned Single Judge by a judgmentdated 13.04.2018 in CWJC No. 1429/2014 came to a findingthat the writ petition suffers from gross delay and grave latcheson the part of the original petitioner in filing the same as alsoheld that whatever amount has been held up, is in conformitywith the power vested with the authorities. It was also recordedin the said judgment dated 13.04.2018 that the bank hasofficially communicated to the Reserve Bank of India, by wayof a report on actual or suspected fraud in the bank for whichthe amount has also been quantified that such fraud was onaccount of the deeds of the father of the petitioners herein i.e.the original writ petitioner relating to 40 IRDP loan accountswhere the suppliers have been paid without them supplying thegoods/materials to the loanees. Consequently, the writ petitionwas dismissed by the aforesaid judgment dated 13.04.2018leading to filing of an appeal by the petitioners herein, i.e. LPANo. 1531 of 2018 wherein this Court had refrained frominterfering with the impugned judgment dated 13.04.2018 andhad, while disposing the said Appeal vide order dated 21.04.2022, merely noted the contention of the learned counselfor the bank to the effect that the bank would release thecontribution made by the bank in the provident fund account ofthe father of the petitioners.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for theopposite parties by referring to the show cause filed in thepresent case that in compliance to the aforesaid order dated21.04.2022, the bank has already released a sum of Rs.1,74,166/- towards provident fund dues in the concernedaccount on 22.08.2022, which is at the moment existing in thename of Sri. Rajiv Nayan.

3. This Court finds that no rejoinder affidavit hasbeen filed by the petitioners so as to dispute the aforesaid standtaken by the opposite parties in the show cause filed by them. Inview of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we arenot persuaded to proceed any further in the matter, hence, thepresent petition stands dismissed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)

( Shailendra Singh, J)