Delhi High Court
Karunapati Pandey vs Uco Bank & Ors. on 30 March, 2009
Author: V.K.Shali
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No.7880/2009
Date of Decision : 30.03.2009
Karunapati Pandey ......Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person
Versus
Uco Bank & Ors. .......Respondents
Through: Mr. Victor Vaibhav Tandon for
Ms. Shilpa Singh, Advocate for
respondents No.1 & 4.
Mr. C.M. Manaktala, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? NO
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? NO
V.K. SHALI, J.
1. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for
quashing the order of punishment dated 11th February, 1998 imposed
by the respondent /Bank.
2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the present writ
petition are that the petitioner was proceeded departmentally under
Regulation 3(1) of UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct)
Regulations, 1976 and UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and
Appeal) Regulations, 1976 on account of having credited a sum of Rs.4
crores in the account of Sh.Harshad S.Mehta in respect of which a
cheque was issued by IFCO to the UCO bank for purchase of units
issued by UTI. The respondent/Bank after holding a domestic enquiry
against the petitioner imposed a punishment of dismissal according to
the Rules vide order dated 31.10.1998. This order has been wrongly
mentioned by the petitioner in the prayer clause as order dated 11th
February, 1998. An appeal against order dated 31.10.1998 was also
dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 27.5.1999.
3. The petitioner has now woken up from deep slumber and has
challenged the said order of dismissal in the present writ petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been
contended by the counsel for the petitioner that another co-delinquent
namely Sh.Sunil Gorawara posted at Kolkata as Sr. Manager had
approached Kolkata High Court against the domestic enquiry against
him which has culminated into imposition of punishment of warning
only and therefore, on the basis of parity, the petitioner should have
also been visited with a lesser punishment.
5. Another ground which has been urged by counsel for the
petitioner for invoking the writ jurisdiction by this Court is to the effect
that the CVC has also observed that the petitioner was not the sole
person responsible for such illegal transfer of funds in the account of
Sh.Harshad S.Mehta.
6. I have considered the submission of the counsel and perused
the record. Without going into the merits of the submission made by
counsel for the petitioner, I feel there is inordinate delay and latches in
filing the writ petition inasmuch as admittedly the punishment of
dismissal has been imposed on 31.10.1998 and the appeal against the
said dismissal order has been rejected on 27.5.1999 and the present
writ petition is being filed almost after a decade without any
justification whatsoever.
7. For these reasons, the present writ petition is totally
misconceived as it is hit by inordinate delay and latches and
accordingly, the same is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
V.K. SHALI, J.
March 30, 2009
RN
