IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18451 of 2011 Doman Choudhary son of Late Dukhan Choudhary resident of Mohalla Chattar Darwaja, Ward No.7 P.S. Daudnagar, District Aurangabad …Petitioner Versus 1. The Magadh Gramin Bank Head Office at Sonediha House, Hill Katari Road Gaya 2. The Chairman, Magadh Gramin Bank, Sonediha House Hill Katari Road Gaya 3. The Disciplinary Authority cum Chairman Magadh Gramin Bank, Hill Kateri Road Gaya …Respondents For the petitioner : Mr. G.K Jha & :Mr. S.K. Jha For the respondents: Mr. Archana Palkar Khopde ----------- 02. 21.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondent-Magadh Gramin Bank (for short „the Bank). Petitioner was proceeded against and inflicted punishment by order dated 31.03.2003 (Annexure-2). Besides imposing punishment it was held that for the period the petitioner was kept under suspension i.e. 8.8.2000 to 9.4.2003 he would not get anything save and except the subsistence allowance already paid/disbursed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order , he filed appeal. The appellate authority, namely Board of Directors of the Bank considered and affirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Aggrieved thereat, the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court which was disposed of by order dated 19.01.2004 (Annexure-4). The operative portion of the order reads as follows:- “Under the circumstances the writ application to the extent and the liberty aforesaid is allowed. The respondent Bank if want to take a decision on the question of payment of salary/wages for the 2 period for which the petitioner was under suspension then they would be obliged to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner. Consequently the appellate authority contained in Annexure-11 is also quashed.” In the light of the said order of this Court, there is no dispute, petitioner was served another show cause notice to which he replied. On a consideration of aforesaid representation, the authority passed a fresh order taking the same view with regard to the payment of the period of suspension. Said order is, however, not on record. It is the case of the petitioner that he again filed a writ petition which was disposed of and the authorities were directed to make a fresh consideration and pass appropriate order. Unfortunately, the aforesaid order is also not attached with the writ petition. However, it is admitted position that in the light of the said order the matter was again considered and rejected by order dated 8.11.2008 (last annexure of the brief) which reads as under:- “Regarding above, this to inform you that hour captioned appeal was put up before the Appellate Authority (Board) in its meeting held on 26.09.2008. The Board on your said appeal has observed as under:- The Board took the said judgment passed by Hon‟ble High Court into its consideration in word and spirit and after due deliberation it arrives to the conclusions that the points raised in the appeal of the subject are not acceptable and upheld the order of punishment already inflicted on the subject. Hence observing no merit in the appeal it is disallowed.” Learned counsel submits that order is mechanical 3 and does not assign reasons. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Bank, on the other hand, submits that the matter was considered threadbare at least on two counts in the light of the order of the High Court and thereafter the authority did not find it appropriate to grant relief considering the charge(s) which were held to be proved. On going through the impugned order and after hearing the submissions of the parties, this Court is satisfied that no illegality as such has been committed by the authority in refusing to grant relief prayed for in the application. Let it be noted that petitioner was departmentally proceeded against for the charge(s) of illegal withdrawal(s) and advancing loan contrary to the guidelines/circulars of the Bank. The application deserves to be dismissed. I order accordingly. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )