IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No. 1604 of 2009 Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank through its Chairman, namely, Dr. Ram Soduba Sangapure, Head Office- Kalambagh Chowk, P.S. Kazi Mohammadpur, District-Muzaffarpur, earlier known as Champaran Kshitriya Gramin Bank, H.O Motihari ………. Respondent- Appellant Versus Baikunth Bihari Mishra, son of Late Badri Narayan Mishra, resident of village- Sonpur, P.S. Riga, District-Sitamarhi ….. Petitioner-Respondent. -------------- For the appellants :- Mr. Prabhakar Jha,Advocate For the Respondent :- Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, Advocate. ------------- 3. 04.03.2010 I.A. No. 8444 of 2009 has been filed for condoning the delay of 84 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent we are satisfied that there are sufficient reasons for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The delay is, therefore, condoned. I.A. No. 8444 of 2009 is accordingly disposed of. Having condoned the delay, the appeal is 2 taken up for admission and with the consent of learned counsels for the parties the matter is finally heard. The appeal has been filed by the appellant- Gramin Bank against the order dated 6.8.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 12785 of 2004 by which the order dated 4.4.2007 passed by the Chairman of the respondent-appellant- Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank was found to be not sustainable and it was held that the petitioner-respondent having complied with the appellate order, had a right to join the organization and consequently entitled to all his remunerations from 7.2.2007 treating him as having duly joined till his superannuation. In this case the writ petitioner-respondent was awarded punishment of dismissal by the disciplinary authority but on appeal the Board of Directors of the appellant-Bank taking a lenient view of the matter set aside the order of punishment of dismissal by order dated 1.9.2004 and reduced it to the initial basic stage of pay in the time scale subject to the petitioner withdrawing all cases against the Management/Chairman. Thereafter the 3 writ petition was filed by the petitioner-respondent. In the meantime the petitioner sought permission to join although the police case filed by him against the Chairman could not be withdrawn since the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari refused to permit withdrawal on the ground that only the Public Prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor is entitled to file such application. By the order dated 4.4.2007 of the Chairman of the Bank he was not permitted to join on the ground that the criminal case has not been withdrawn and further that the writ petition was also not withdrawn as was directed. The learned Single Judge on a consideration of the aforesaid facts, observed that the writ petitioner could not be faulted as under the law he had no right to withdraw the criminal case and further so far as the writ petition was concerned, it was filed after the order passed by the appellate authority and thus withdrawal of the writ petition could not have been in contemplation of the appellate authority. Learned counsel for the respondent-appellant Bank has reiterated the submissions made before the 4 learned Single Judge and sought to justify the order passed by the Chairman in not allowing the writ petitioner to join as he has not complied with the orders passed by the Board of Directors by withdrawing the criminal case. Learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent on the other hand submits that the said submissions have rightly been held to have no force by the learned Single Judge since the order of the Board of Directors itself was passed without considering the fact that the petitioner- respondent has no right under the law to withdraw the criminal case and he himself had complied with the order by filing the requisite application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate which was rejected on legal grounds and thus there was no non-compliance of the order of the Board of Directors by him as held by the learned Single Judge. On a consideration of the factual matrix of the case and the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, we do not find any reason to disagree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge as it was not open to the appellant-Bank to rely upon a condition in the appellate order which was beyond the capability of the 5 writ petitioner to comply with, so as to refuse permission to join to the petitioner-respondent. The learned Single Judge has also clarified that neither he has approved nor disapproved the appellate order but has only directed the appellant-Bank to make necessary payments to the writ petitioner holding that he would be entitled to all remunerations from 7.2.2007, as the petitioner-respondent had duly joined, till the date of superannuation. The order under appeal thus calls for no interference. In the result, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. S. Pandey (Dipak Misra, C.J.) ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)