IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3859 of 2010 Suresh Das, son of late Sukhdeo Das, Resident of Hazipur Bhirdi, Police Station Tajpur, District Samastipur, at present posted as Managing Director, the Siwan Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Siwan-cum-District Co-operative Officer, Siwan. -------- Opposite Party No.3 and 6-Petitioner Versus 1. Bipin Bihari Singh son of Paras Nath Singh, Resident of Village Hasanpura Tola Futulehi, Police Station (Muffasil), District Siwan. -------- Petitioner 2. Shri Narsing Upadhyay, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna. 3. Ramayan Chaubey, the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Saran Commissionery, Chapra. 4. Vandana Prayasi, The Collector, Siwan. 5. Dig Vijay Singh, the Chief Accountant Central Co-operative Bank, Siwan. --------- Opposite Party No.2, 4, 5 and 7 ------ Opposite Parties ----------- 2 27.10.2010 Heard Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the opposite party no.1. This Court is satisfied that there cannot be a better frivolous application. In this application, the prayer of the petitioner is to recall/clarify/modify the order dated 31.3.2010 in MJC No. 2423 of 2009. The said MJC No. 2423 of 2009, a contempt application, in fact, had arisen from an order of this Court dated 4.3.2009 in CWJC No. 2897 of 2009, wherein, this Court, had having noticed that the opposite party 2 no.1, namely, Bipin Bihari Singh, having been placed under suspension on 3.8.2001, could not have been kept under such suspension for an indefinite period and accordingly, had passed the following order:- “Grievance of the petitioner as with regard to an order of suspension dated 3.8.2001 seems to be genuine. The order of suspension cannot be allowed to be continued for the indefinite period. From the records of this case it would appear that in fact pursuant to memo of charge an enquiry was conducted and some enquiry was also held leading to submission of the enquiry report dated 8.1.2004 as is mentioned in the letter of the Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Siwan dated 26.12.2008. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the competent authority, now incharge of the affairs of the Central Co-operative Bank, Siwan, to take a final decision in terms of the enquiry report within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Whatever order has to be passed as with regard to departmental proceeding as is sought to be conveyed in the letter of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Siwan (vide memo no. 427 dated 26.12.2008, Annexure-7), must be done in the aforementioned period so that at least 3 grievance of the petitioner as with regard to his continuance in suspension for a period over seven years comes to an end. Such authority while taking final decision in the proceedings would also ensure payment of subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner which has been alleged to be withheld and not paid to the petitioner. The Respondents should pay admitted amount of subsistence allowance or given reasons for not paying the same. This application stands disposed of.” When the said order was not complied, the petitioner had filed contempt application on 5.8.2009, which was disposed of by an order dated 31.3.2010 and again this Court had noted as follows:- “Coming to the merits of the case, it is really unfortunate to note that the counsel for the State despite service of copy of the contempt application on 5.8.2009 has still taken a plea that he has got no instruction. That would only go to show the callousness and slackness on the part of the office of the Advocate General and the concerned Govt. officials. By the order dated 4.3.2009 the competent authority, In-charge of the affairs of the Central Co-operative Bank, Siwan was directed to take a final decision in terms of the enquiry report 4 submitted in the departmental proceeding against the petitioner. If such order has not been interfered with by the superior court, the same was to be complied within a period of three months i.e. in or around 30th of June, 2009. Keeping this contempt application, therefore, would be of little avail and therefore, this Court would direct the competent authority of the Central Co- operative Bank, Siwan to ensure compliance of the order of this Court dated 4.3.2009 in C.W.J.C. No. 2879/2009 within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and submit such compliance report both to the Registry of this Court as also to A.A.G.VIII, counsel appearing in this case.” Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Bank had no notice in the connected writ application and, as such, the order, which was passed for concluding the departmental proceeding and taking a final decision in the matter of suspension, was passed behind the back of the authority, who had passed the order of suspension. He has further submitted that the writ petitioner, namely, Bipin Bihari Singh was not entitled for payment of salary, inasmuch as, he was an employee of 5 Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society for whom there was no liability for payment of salary on the part of Central Cooperative Bank, Siwan. He has further submitted that since the writ petitioner had never cooperated in the case of departmental proceeding, the Bank could not comply the order of this Court. This Court is absolutely at a loss to appreciate the net effect of such submission. It is not in doubt that writ petitioner was placed under suspension under the order of the Managing Director of the Central Cooperative Bank. Once a person is placed under suspension, he cannot be kept under such limbo for an indefinite period. This Court, therefore, having noticed that the writ petitioner was continuing in suspension for more than eight years, had passed the order in the writ application directing the authority to conclude the departmental proceeding, which eventually could have also ended the grievance of the writ petitioner with regard to his suspension of the year, 2001. Mr. 6 Prasad accepts that after the order of this Court, the copy of the enquiry report was sent to the writ petitioner asking him to submit his comment/reaction to the findings recorded against him in the enquiry report. Once this Court would find that the writ petitioner was suspended by the order of the order of the Managing Director of the Central Cooperative Bank, Siwan, it would not be in a position to hold that the revocation of the order of suspension or the final order in the departmental proceeding against the writ petitioner will never be passed only because he was initially an employee of the Primary Agriculture Cooperative Bank. If the writ petitioner was not under administrative control of the Central Cooperative Bank, the Managing Director had no business to pass the order of suspension and keep him out of employment for whatever worth it was for a period of nine years. Moreover, when the Managing Director of Central Cooperative Bank had also issued second show-cause notice by way of service of the enquiry report on 11.8.2009, he cannot be heard to say that he 7 had no administrative control over the writ petitioner. In that view of the matter, it appears to this Court that the petitioner, the Managing Director of the Siwan Central Cooperative Society, Siwan has adopted a harassing attitude towards the writ petitioner. Be that as it may, this application has got no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)