Letters Patent Appeal No.287 of 2007 ******* Aginst the judgment dated 06th February, 2007, passed by learned Single Judge in CWJC no.215 of 2003. ******* ================================================== 1. The State Bank Of India through its Chairman, Central Office in Administrative Building, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai 2. The Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Muzaffarpur 3. The Asst. General Manager, Region State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Muzaffarpur .... .... Appellants Versus Jai Kumar Singh S/o Sri Ram Sewak Singh, R/o Village-Ojhaul, P.S. Bahadurpur, District-Darbhanga then posted as Senior Assistant, State Bank of India, Kumhrauli Branch, District-Darbhanga. .... .... Respondent ================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. KAUSHLENDRA KR.SINHA Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. A. K. UPADHYAY CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. T. MEENA KUMARI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. T. MEENA KUMARI) The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed against order of CWJC no. 215 0f 2003 where the respondent has chosen to file the writ petition questioning the order of punishment of stoppage of 2 three increments with cumulative effect and also treating the period of suspension of the petitioner from 12.1.1984 to 13.11.1989 as not on duty. 2. The grievance of the respondent in CWJC 215 of 2003 is that in absence of any finding of guilt the Enquiry Officer has taken a decision contrary to the findings of guilt. In absence of any material to take a different opinion the Enquiry Officer has charged him inflicting punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and also treating the period of suspension of the petitioner from 12.1.1984 to 13.11.1989 as not on duty. Earlier when the order was passed by the Bank the respondent had approached this Court by filing CWJC no. 2067 of 1990 challenging the order of punishment on the ground that no notice has been issued by the Bank. While treating that opinion of the Enquiry Officer the High Court has passed order directing the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh order and to also the respondent to place his objection before the Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly, The order of stoppage of three increments have come out by the aforesaid Disciplinary Authority, that is Annexures-21 and 22, which has been challenged in the present CWJC no.215 of 2003. 3. The learned single Judge has found that the Enquiry 3 Officer has held that the charges have not proved and got into the matter in extenso and has held that the order of punishment can be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. We are also in agreement with the finding of the learned single Judge. 4. The learned counsel for the Bank has vehemently argued that the learned single Judge was not right in setting aside the order of punishment on the face of the charges even though he failed in submitting that the Enquiry Officer has exonerated the respondent of all the charges. The learned counsel has also submitted that the enquiry revealed that Suresh Chandra Singh was a fictitious person. Hence, charge sheet has been issued to the respondent for opening of new account in the name of fictitious person which resulted in fraudulent withdrawal of thirty two thousand and odd. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and held that the charge not proved. However, we are of the opinion that the perusal of the material goes to show that the Bank has never placed any material or any evidence to show that the said Suresh Chandra Singh was a fictitious person. In absence of such materials or any evidence to the above effect before the Enquiry Officer, on the face of clear finding of the Enquiry Officer stating that the charges remained not proved, we are of the opinion that the Bank cannot turn down and has a different opinion than the material available before the Enquiry Officer. In 4 absene of such material, we are of the opinion, as held by the learned single Judge, the Bank has exceeded the jurisdiction by unnecessary inflicting the punishment as contained in Annexures-21 and 22. As there is no fresh material available before the Bank or any evidence to say that Suresh Chandra Singh was a fictitious person, in view of our findings, we do not agree with the argument of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank that there is some source of information that said Singh was fictitious person. We are of the opinion that unless the source is indicated to the delinquent and he should be given an opportunity to demolish the case of the Bank in absence of which, we are of the opinion the order of the learned single Judge is perfectly legal and need not be intefered with. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. Patna High Court, The 06th July, 2011. AAhmad/(NAFR). (T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Akhilesh Chandra, J.)