VINAYAK BALCHANDRA GHANEKAR vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND 2 ORS

Judgment text excerpt

TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Digitally signed by TRUPTI SADANAND Trupti 29-wp-970-2022.odt BAMNE Date: 2025.03.19 14:57:22 +0530 (Reportable) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 970 OF 2022 1. Vinayak Balchandra Ghanekar, aged 63 years of Pune Indian Inhabitant, residing at Flat No. 7, 3rd Floor, B – Wing, Rutuja Residency, Rambaug Colony Road, Kothrud, Pune 411 038. … Petitioner Versus 1 Punjab National Bank, A Government of India Undertaking through it’s Chairman and Managing Director having its Head Office at Punjab National Bank, Plot No.4, Sector – 10, Dwarka, New Delhi – 110 075. 2 Zonal Manager, Regional Office, Punjab National Bank, 11th Floor, Dalamal House, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021. 3 The Chief Manager, HRD Department, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Pune Arora Towers, 9, Moledina Road, Pune Camp, Pune – 411 001 … Respondents ---- Mr.Vishal Talsania with Mr.Rajesh Kothari, Mr.Dhyan Shah and Mr.Dhruv Mishra for the Petitioner. Mr.Harsh Sheth i/b. MDP Legal for the Respondents/Bank. ---- CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ. DATE : 10TH MARCH, 2025 1 of 31 Trupti 29-wp-970-2022.odt ORAL JUDGMENT (Per:Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. We have considered the extensive submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides. 3. The learned Advocate representing the Respondent Bank has placed reliance upon the affidavit-in-reply dated 18 th February, 2025 and the accompanying documents (126 pages). He has vehemently opposed this Petition and submits that the Petitioner can neither point out any illegality in conducting the Departmental Enquiry, nor that the punishment awarded, is shockingly disproportion