PATNA, India, July 18 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on July 10:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondent-Bank.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief/s:-

"I. For quashing of the Memorandum of Charge as contained in letter No. RO/DAW/2014-15/04 dated 25.04.2014 Annexure-3) containing two charges against the petitioner, which are related with Term Loans which had actually been sanctioned by the then Senior Branch Manager Sri D.P. Srivastava of Fri Branch, Dehradun to (1) Amit Kumar Sharma and (2) Ranveer Chauhan and Bhanu Pratap Singh Chauhan at Fri Branch, Dehradun of the Respondent Bank on 15.01.2011 and 19.01.2011 respectively

II. For quashing of the Enquiry Report dated 30.09.2014 submitted by the Respondent No. 5 proving Charge Nos. (1) and (2) against the petitioner, without there being any substantive evidence and documents on record of the Enquiry for proving the charges of presanction, processing and recommending for the sanction of both term loans under housing Scheme of the Bank to (1) Amit Kumar Sharma and (2) Ranveer Chauhan and Bhanu Pratap Singh Chauhan.

III. For quashing of the impugned order of punishment issued by the Respondent No. 3 (Letter No. RO/DAW/2014-15/159 dated 05.02.2015) whereby consolidated major punishment of "Reduction of Two (2) stages in the time scale of pay for two years with further direction that the C.S.O.E. (petitioner) will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay" has been inflicted against the petitioner.

IV. For quashing of the order passed by the Appellate Authority (Respondent No.4) as contained in Letter No. ZO/PAT/HRD/DAD/2015-16 dated 11.06.2015, whereby the service appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order of punishment issued by the Respondent No. 3 as contained in Letter No. RO/DAW/2014-15/159 dated 05.02.2015 has been upheld.

V. For grant of any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of this case."

3. Learned counsel appearing for the RespondentBank raised a preliminary objection and submits that the punishment order has been passed on 05.02.2015 (annexed as Annexure-8) and the Appellate order has been passed on 11.06.2015 (annexed as Annexure-11) in which reduction of two (2) stages in the time scale of pay for two years has been imposed. Counsel submits that the punishment is minor and the effect of punishment has ended after two years i.e. on 04.02.2017, but the present writ petition has been filed on 05.05.2018 i.e. after lapse of about 3 years from the date of order of punishment.

4. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition as the petitioner has accepted the punishment and after completion of about 3 years from the date of order of punishment, petitioner has moved before this Hon'ble Court and filed the present writ petition.

5. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.