Letters Patent Appeal No.435 OF 2001. - - - - - - - Against the order dated 6th April 2001 passed in C.W.J.C.No.1036 of 1999. - - - - - SHAILESH BHUSHAN-------------------------------Appellant. Versus THE CHAIRMAN,SAMASTIPUR KSHETR--Respondents. - - - - - - - - For the appellant : Mr.Shrinandan Prasad Singh,Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar No.1. For the Respondents : N o n e. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE CHANDRA MOHAN PRASAD. Barin Ghosh & C.M.Prasad,JJ The appellant was Branch Manager of a Branch of Samastipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Samastipur. By an order dated 6th February 1992, he was transferred from that Branch to another Brnach and was asked to hand over charge of the Branch, from where he had been transferred, to the Branch Manager designate of the said Branch. Petitioner refused to act on the basis of the said transfer order. In stead, he approached this Court and challenged the said transfer order in a writ petition filed by him. In the writ petition, on 21st May 1992, an order of stay was passed. By virtue of the stay order, the transfer order dated 6th February 1992 was stayed from 21st - 2 - May 1992. while the transfer order was not honored, the appellant even did not apply for leave.The writ petition was dismissed on 24th August 1992, whereby the said stay order stood vacated. Despite that, the appellant did not honour the transfer order dated 6th February 1992 until 21st May 1993. He did not even hand over charge of the Bank, from where he was transferred, to the Manager designate of the said Branch. In view of the appellant having had acted in such manner, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him, which resulted in a dismissal order. The said dismissal order was challenged in a writ petition. While the said writ petition was considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court, His Lordships felt that inasmuch as the appellant was prosecuting a case before this Court for redressal of his grievances against the order of transfer, the matter requires fresh consideration by the disciplinary authority on the point of quantum of punishment. In such view of the matter, the learned Judge, while quashed the order of dismissal, remanded back the matter to the disciplinary authority for fresh consideration. The disciplinary authority, upon fresh consideration, terminated the services of the appellant and while doing so, - 3 - gave elaborated reasons in support thereof. The order of termination was the subject matter of challenge in the last writ petition filed by the appellant. That has been rejected by the judgment and order under appeal. It is the contention of the appellant in the instant appeal that there is hardly any difference in between an order of dismissal and an order of termination of services. It was contended that in the last round of litigation, the court in no uncertain terms directed the disciplinary authority to considerer afresh the question of quantum of punishment, but the disciplinary authority by passing almost a same order did not discharge its obligation in terms of he order of this Court passed in the last round of litigation. A reading of the order of this Court rendered in the earlier writ petition would clearly demonstrate that reconsideration of quantum of punishment was directed in view of prosecution by the appellant before this Court for redressal of his grievance against the order of transfer. In the order ultimately passed terminating the services of the appellant, it has been elaborately discussed that apart from the period, when lis pertaining to grievances of the appellant - 4 - against the order of transfer was pending in this Court, despite several requests made to the appellant, the appellant did not show any interest to discharge his obligation in terms of the transfer order dated 6th February 1992 which has been upheld by this Court to be a correct order by dismissing the writ petition. The order of this court passed in the earlier writ petitionr did not prevent the disciplinary authority to pass once again a dismissal order. The limited remand for considering the quantum of punishment was for the reason that the appellant was prosecuting before this Court his grievances against the order of transfer. The appellant had not shown any respect to the transfer order, during the period when the lis pertaining the transfer order was not pending. Ultimately the order of termination has indicated that. The same suggested gross defiance to the order of the employer. That being the situation, we feel that the learned Judge, while dismissing the writ petition by the judgment and order under appeal, correctly held that there is no need of any interference. Before us the learned counsel for the appellant could not show any defect in the ultimate order passed terminating the services of the appellant and that being the situation, the - 5 - appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. Patna High Court, Dated 31st July 08 N.A.F.R. Jay/ (Barin Ghosh, J) (C.M.Prasad,J)