Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdeep Singh vs Punjab National Bank And Ors on 4 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154214
CWP-1540-2019 -1- 2023:PHHC:154214
112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-2450-2019
Date of Decision:04.12.2023
1)
JAGDEEP SINGH ......Petitioner
Versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS .....Respondents
2) CWP-1540-2019
SUNNY KUMAR ......... Petitioner
Versus
PUNJAB NAITONAL BANK AND OTHERS ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner in
CWP-2450-2019 and CWP-1540-2019.
Mr. Saurav Verma, Advocate with
Ms. Preeti Grover, Advocate and
Mr. Akash Soni, Advocate
for the respondents.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. By this common order CWP-2450-2019 and CWP-1540-
2019 are disposed of since issue involved in both the petitions and prayer
sought are common. With the consent of parties and for the sake of
brevity, facts are borrowed from CWP-2450-2019.
2. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of advertisement dated
28.11.2016 (Annexure P-1) whereby respondent has prescribed 12th pass
minimum as well as maximum qualification for the post of Peon.
3. The petitioner pursuant to advertisement dated 28.11.2016
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154214
CWP-1540-2019 -2- 2023:PHHC:154214
(Annexure P-1) applied for the post of Peon. The petitioner was
appointed vide appointment letter dated 04.01.2017. The petitioner was
possessing qualification of Bachelor in arts whereas he disclosed in
application his qualification as 10+2. The respondent issued letter dated
20.03.2018 seeking explanation from the petitioner with respect to his
qualification. The said letter was followed by chargesheet dated
20.04.2018. An inquiry was conducted and thereafter petitioner was
dismissed from service vide order dated 16.08.2018 (Annexure P-15).
The petitioner preferred appeal before Appellate Authority which came to
be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon judgment of
Supreme Court in Mohd. Raizul Usman Gani & others Vs. District &
Sessions Judge, Nagpur & others (2000) 2 SCC 606 and Life Insurance
Corporation of India & others Vs. Triveni Sharan Mishra (2014) 10
SCC 346 submits that higher qualification cannot be disqualification. The
petitioner was possessing qualification of graduation in arts and
maximum prescribed qualification was 10+2. In view of judgments of
Supreme Court, the petitioner has been wrongly dismissed from service.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
Supreme Court in Chief Manager, PNB Versus Anit Kumar Dass (2021)
12 SCC 80 and a Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Bank of
Commerce and others Vs. Ram Kumar 2015 SCC Online P&H 6539,
after noticing judgments cited by petitioner have held that where
maximum qualification is prescribed and there is concealment of facts on
the part of an applicant, the appointing authority has right to dismiss the
candidate.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154214
CWP-1540-2019 -3- 2023:PHHC:154214
6. On being confronted with afore-cited judgments, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of order dated 16.11.2019
passed by this Court in Rajpal Vs. Punjab National Bank and others in
CWP No.25412 of 2019, it may be made clear that removal of the
petitioner shall not be taken as stigmatic and will not come in his way of
applying and getting job anywhere else.
7. In the wake of statement made by learned counsel for the
petitioner, the present petitions stand disposed of with an observation on
the ground of equity that removal of the petitioner shall not be taken as
stigmatic and will not come in his way of applying and getting job
anywhere else.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
04.12.2023
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154214
3 of 3
