Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gaurav Dhawal vs Punjab Gramin Bank And Others on 4 February, 2026
CWP-3119-2026 -1-
110
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-3119-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 04.02.2026
Gourav Dhawal
... Petitioner
Vs.
Punjab Gramin Bank and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Mohan Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*******
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. Present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of the dismissal order dated 25.06.2025 (Annexure P-9), chargesheet dated 20.06.2024 (Annexure P-1), enquiry report dated 28.02.2025 (Annexure P-5) and entire disciplinary proceedings initiated during pendency of a criminal case, with a further prayer to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service and grant full back wages with continuity of service along with all other benefits.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was a confirmed permanent Customer Service Associate (Office 1 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 22:29:35 ::: CWP-3119-2026 -2- Assistant) in the respondent-Bank. On 20.06.2024, a chargesheet (Annexure P-1) was served upon him alleging misconduct under Article IV(a), to which, he submitted a detailed reply on 15.07.2024 (Annexure P-2) and requested to provide 319 documents (listed as MD-1 to MD-319) along with a list of witnesses. It is further contended that with the similar allegations, an FIR No.105 dated 21.06.2024 was registered under Sections 420, 465, 467 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga (Annexure P-3). Further, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 28.02.2025 (Annexure P-5) proving the charges against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 17.04.2025 (Annexure P-6) against the findings of Enquiry Officer, which was not decided. However, a Show Cause Notice dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P-7), proposing to impose major penalty of dismissal from service, was issued to the petitioner and on 25.06.2025, impugned order (Annexure P-9) was passed without affording adequate opportunity to him to respond to the aforesaid Show Cause Notice. Further, impugned order of dismissal (Annexure P-9) was passed within 24 hours of grant of personal hearing without independent application of mind. As such, entire disciplinary proceedings suffers from incurable illegality on account of failure of the Enquiry Officer to grant sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to lead defence evidence. The enquiry was concluded during pendency of the criminal case arising out of identical facts and witnesses, causing grave prejudice to the petitioner. Furthermore, treating the suspension period as non-duty period is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
2 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 22:29:36 ::: CWP-3119-2026 -3-
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case file with his able assistance.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner filed his reply (Annexure P-2) to the chargesheet dated 20.06.2024 (Annexure P-1) on 15.07.2024 and he also sought time to file reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P-7), as discernible from letter dated 24.06.2025 (Annexure P-8). The petitioner also requested to supply copies of 319 documents along with a list of witnesses, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, appears to be a ploy to delay the disciplinary proceedings. Further, the petitioner was issued chargesheet dated 20.06.2024 (Annexure P-1) for indulging in unethical and dishonest activities by allegedly transferring accounts from 'inoperative category' to 'operative category' without obtaining request form/consent documents or updation of KYC documents of account-holders. The signatures of 14 account-holders on the withdrawal slips do not match with signatures on Account Opening Forms and also thumb impression of 02 account-holders do not match with the record maintained in the respondent-Bank. Further, amounts were withdrawn from the accounts of 09 deceased account-holders and there are 67 accounts, from which funds were withdrawn without consent of account-holders. The Enquiry Officer has based his findings on the basis of record and he examined more than 300 documents, which find mentioned in his report.
5. Furthermore, appraisal of the case by the disciplinary authority clearly indicates that the charged employee was afforded ample opportunity by the Enquiry Officer and even the punishing authority, before awarding the 3 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 22:29:36 ::: CWP-3119-2026 -4- punishment of dismissal from service, issued Show Cause Notice. Relevant portion of the aforesaid appraisal reads as under: -
"Appraisal of the case by the undersigned Disciplinary Authority After having examined the submission dated 17.04.2025 (received at ours on 19.04.2025) of the charged employee Sh. Gourav Dhawal (u/s), Customer Service Associate in respect of findings of Enquiry Officer dated 28.02.2025 vis-a-vis Charge sheet dated 20.06.2024 and the related record, the undersigned observed that:
►The charged Employee was provided ample opportunities by the Enquiry Officer during the enquiry proceedings to present and defend his case on his own as well as by taking the assistance of a defence representative.
►The findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on the evidence adduced during the enquiry proceedings, duly conducted in the presence of the charged employee.
►The finding of the Enquiry Officer is based on the facts that emerged during the course of the enquiry proceedings and are well- reasoned, just and legal.
As regards point-wise submission of the charged employee, the findings of the report suggest that -
The Charged Employee has made the submission that he was not provided a chance by the Enquiry Officer to cross-examine Ms. Shilpa Mehta, i.e. MW3 and Sh. Kapil Martolia, i.e. MW4. However, from the perusal of the records, it is clear that the charged employee never used his right to cross-examine the Management Witnesses and also never showed his intention to cross-examine the management witnesses. Furthermore, the enquiry officer on 26.11.2024, during the course of the enquiry, provided necessary opportunities to the charged employee to defend his case, but the
4 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 22:29:36 ::: CWP-3119-2026 -5- Charged Employee himself declined the opportunity, stating he has nothing to say. Relevant portion is as under:
EO to CO: Sir Do you want to submit any other document or witness etc. CO to EO: No Sir I have not to say anything except above statement given by me orally and pen drive. I want to close my defense side as I have nothing to say further.
From the above, it is clear that the charged employee was provided with sufficient and justified opportunities to defend his case, but the charged employee never showed his interest in defending his case or cross-examining the witnesses.
Moreover, the charged employee also failed to produce any documents or witnesses to deny the charges alleged against him, except a pen drive submitted by the charged employee on CSE during course of enquiry was given full opportunity to cross examine all the witnesses i.e. MW3, MW4 and MW5. Submissions of CSE during enquiry dated 26.11.2024 follows:
EO to CO: Sir Do you want to submit any other document or witness etc. CO to EO: No Sir I have not to say anything except above statement given by me orally and pen drive. I want to close my defense side as I have nothing to say further.
So the submissions of CSE in his written briefs that "evidence of Mrs. Shilpa Mehta (MW3) and Sh. Kapil Martolia (MW4) carries no legal weight are baseless and liable to be ignored." Submissions of CSE that BM fatehgarh Korotana was to verify each and every document including voucher produced before him before he sanctioned the payment to customers is also baseless. In terms of HRD Circular No.59/2021 dated 17.12.2021 Posting and cash payment of all cheques/withdrawl forms/banker cheques gift cheques
5 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 22:29:36 ::: CWP-3119-2026 -6- upto and including Rs.20000/- is included in duty of Office Assistant (MP) (Single window operator B). Hence the charges levelled against Sh. Gourav Dhawal in the charge sheet dated 20.06.2024 stand proved by PO."
6. It is a settled proposition of law that the scope of judicial review in matters relating to departmental enquiry proceedings is extremely limited. Such review cannot assume the character of an appeal, nor does it permit re-assessment of the merits of decision. The Court is confined to scrutinizing the decision- making process to ensure that it conforms to principles of legality and fairness, and the findings are not rendered perverse or wholly unsupported by evidence. Once it is demonstrated from the record that the findings rest upon some material evidence, it is not open to the Court, in exercise of its power of judicial review, to re-appreciate or re-weigh the evidence for arriving at a different conclusion. This lakshman rekha, demarcating the boundaries of judicial interference, has been consistently recognized and re-affirmed in a catena of judgments of this Hon'ble Court.
7. A two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, speaking through Justice Kurian Joseph, made the following observation: -
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court 6 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 22:29:36 ::: CWP-3119-2026 -7- is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
7 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 22:29:36 ::: CWP-3119-2026 -8-
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."
8. Reference in this regard may also be placed on judgements of a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 and Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Arora, (1997) 3 SCC 72.
9. While exercising its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence or sit as a second Court of first appeal. Its jurisdiction is confined to examining whether the enquiry has been conducted by a competent authority, in accordance with the prescribed procedure, and in compliance with the principles of natural justice. The supervisory power extends to ensuring that the decision-making process is free from bias, irrelevant or extraneous considerations and the conclusions drawn are not arbitrary, irrational or unsupported by any evidence. Equally, interference is warranted, where relevant evidence has been wrongly excluded or inadmissible material has improperly influenced the findings. Beyond these limited grounds, the High Court is not entitled to interfere with the factual findings or substitute its views for those of the disciplinary authority.
10. The scope of perversity in this regard has been laid down by a two Bench judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.R. Tewari Vs. Union of 8 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 22:29:36 ::: CWP-3119-2026 -9- India, (2013) 6 SCC 602, wherein, speaking through Justice B.S Chauhan, the following has been observed: -
"29. In Union of India v. R.K. Sharma [(2001) 9 SCC 592 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 767 : AIR 2001 SC 3053] , this Court explained the observations made in Ranjit Thakur [Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1987) 5 ATC 113 :
AIR 1987 SC 2386] observing that if the charge was ridiculous, the punishment was harsh or strikingly disproportionate it would warrant interference. However, the said observations in Ranjit Thakur [Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1987) 5 ATC 113 : AIR 1987 SC 2386] are not to be taken to mean that a court can, while exercising the power of judicial review, interfere with the punishment merely because it considers the punishment to be disproportionate. It was held that only in extreme cases, which on their face, show perversity or irrationality, there could be judicial review and courts should not interfere merely on compassionate grounds.
30. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. The finding may also be said to be perverse if it is "against the weight of evidence", or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. If a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with. (Vide Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn. [(1984) 4 SCC 635 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 131 : AIR
9 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 22:29:36 ::: CWP-3119-2026 -10- 1984 SC 1805] , Kuldeep Singh v. Commr. of Police [(1999) 2 SCC 10 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 429 : AIR 1999 SC 677] , Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v. State of A.P. [(2009) 10 SCC 636 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 372 : AIR 2010 SC 589] and Babu v. State of Kerala [(2010) 9 SCC 189 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1179] .)
31. Hence, where there is evidence of malpractice, gross irregularity or illegality, interference is permissible."
(emphasis added)
11. In the present case, the petitioner has been unable to demonstrate any perversity or illegality in the impugned order, which has been passed after due adherence to the procedure prescribed under the applicable statutory rules. It is further evident from the record that the petitioner was afforded a full and fair opportunity of hearing at every stage of the proceedings. Consequently, no violation of the principles of natural justice is made out.
12. No other contention has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.
13. In view of the above discussion, the present petition is dismissed.
14. The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
[ HARPREET SINGH BRAR ]
04.02.2026 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
10 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 22:29:36 :::