Added [email protected]. Press backspace to remove. Skip to - TopicsExpress



          

Added [email protected]. Press backspace to remove. Skip to content Using Gmail with screen readers +Baldev 1 Search Gmail COMPOSE Labels Inbox (37) Starred Important Chats Sent Mail Drafts (6) Spam (222) Circles Personal Travel More Chat Baldev Mahi Available Sandeep Kamboj Available veeranm123@gmail Offline Ashu Punjabi Offline basu dev sharma Offline Mahi Sharma Offline Rajat Narula Offline Rakesh Kumar [email protected] Invited aipnboa.mumbai Invited Ashok Arora Invited cohsp Invited complaint Invited [email protected] Invited portal-cvc Invited Move to Inbox More 4 of 6 Web Clip Forbes: Most popular stories - NFL Week 17: A Quick Look At The Biggest Games - 7 hours ago Print all In new window lpa Personal x Sonia G Sandhu AttachmentsMar 4 to me Attachments area Preview attachment Baldev LPA.docx Word Baldev LPA.docx Recipients On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Sonia G Sandhu wrote: Send 2.47 GB (16%) of 15 GB used Manage ©2014 Google - Terms - Privacy Last account activity: 8 days ago Details Sonia G Sandhu Friends Show details Whats New Baldev LPA.docxOpen Page 1 of 9IN THE HIGHCOURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHAINDIAGARH LPA NO. _______OF 2014 IN CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 23479 OF 2013 MEMO OF PARTIES BALDEV SINGH MAHI SON OF SH RAM ASRA RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 608 SOHAN ROAD BACK SIDE K.C. PLACE, NAWAN SHAHAR DISTRICT SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR PUNJAB. ….APPELLANT VERSUS 1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK HEAD OFFICER, THROUGH IST GENERAL MANAGER, BIKAJI CAMA PALACE, NEW DELHI. 2. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (CIRCLE HEAD) PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK HOSHIARPUR. 3. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, HEAD OFFICE,, BIKAJI CAMA PALACE, NEW DELHI. ….RESPONDENTS PLACE: CHANDIGARH SONIA G.SINGH & G.S.SANDHU DATED:21.01.2014 MANINDER KAUR ADVOCATES COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT Page 2 of 9IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA NO. _______OF 2014 IN CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 23479 OF 2013 The humble prayer of the appellant in the present appeal Appeal under Clause X of the Letter Patent Act against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 25.10.2013, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, filed by the appellant. RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH : 1. That the present appeal is being filed against the order dated 25.10.2013 passed by the Honble Single Bench vide which the writ of the petitioner impugning the order of compulsory retirement has been dismissed. 2. That the brief facts of the case are that the appellant was having 27 years of unblemished service in which he has always received appreciation letters and his conduct and service record was throughout very good. 3. That the charge sheet issued to the appellant was regarding some lapses in the loans passed during the tenure of the appellant, but before proceedings further on the details of the charges it is relevant to mention Page 3 of 9that due to those procedural lapses there was no financial loss to the bank. Approximately every loan has been repaid. Further the charges for which the appellant has been charged most of them are 4 years prior to the chargesheet dated 05.10.2009. Most of the accounts were closed after satisfaction of the loan on the date when chargesheet was issued. The discrepancies in the loans were procedural in nature and it was not of the types of fraud, mis-representation or corruption. Neither the appellant was beneficiary due to the procedural discrepancies nor the bank was at loss, due to that procedural lapses. 4. That the appellant has filed a detailed appeal giving the procedural lapses in the inquiry, which are serious in nature, but which are not considered by the appellant authority, the inquiry was in violation of Rule 6 of the PNB Officers employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1977. The documents on which the chargesheet is based were not supplied to the appellant, which violates the inquiry itself, as it is against the settled principle of law and against the Rules also. Further the Presenting officer has based his case on the documents, which were not in the list Annexure III, so this major illegality in the inquiry itself, on the basis of which the order of compulsory retirement has been passed vitiates the inquiry. 5. That the highhandedness of the authorities can be seen from the fact that as per Charge 1A an Education loan was sanctioned on 15.10.2007 and disbursed on the same day. The records says that the appellant was on leave from 13.09.2007 to 29.10.2007 and he was out of country during this time, but still he was held guilty for this charge just because he later after returning and joining the duty has signed the loan application, when the person authorized to sanction loans in absence of 1 of 9
Posted on: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 15:54:08 +0000

Trending Topics



Recently Viewed Topics




© 2015