IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1000 of 2008 HARENDRA SINGH S/O LATE DHARMLAL SINGH, R/O VILLAGE- BISHUNPUR, P.S.-CHANDI, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR, AT PRESENT POSTED S OFFICER IN BRANCH OFFICE, RAGUNATHPUR, BHOJPUR ROHTAS GRAMIN BANK IN THE DISTRICT- BUXAR. ……………………..PETITIONER/APPELLANT Versus 1. MADHYA BIHAR GRAMIN BANK THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT MEENA PLAZA, PATNA 2. CHAIRMAN, MADHYA BIHAR GRAMIN BANK HAVING ITS OFFICE AT MEENA PLAZA, PATNA 3. GENERAL MANAAGER, MADHYA BIHAR GRAMIN BANK, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT MEENA PLAZA, PATNA 4. SENIOR MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCE, DEVEOPMENT, MADHYA BIHAR GRAMIN BANK THROUGH HAVING ITS OFFICE AT MEENA PLAZA, PATNA 5. REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT MANAGER/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, HARKHAN KUMAR JAIN TRUST, BHAWAN, HARIJI KA HATA, ARA ON RESTRUCTRE OF BHOJPUR ROHTAS GRAMIN BANK AND ON CONSTITUTION OF MADHYA BIHAR GRAMIN BANK. BHOJPUR ROHTASGRAMIN BANK HAS BEEN DETETED AND SUBSTITUTED BY MADHYA BIHAR GRAMIN BANK AND ITS OFFICES DURING THE PENDENCY OF TH E WRIT PETITON 6. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, HAVING ITS OFFICE- BHIKAJEE CAMA PLACE, PARLIAMENT STREE, NEW DELHI ……………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES/RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Appellant :- Mr. Vindhyachal Singh ----------------- 4 10/02/2009 Writ petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 28.7.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 15585 of 2005, has preferred this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Mr. Vindhyachal Singh appears on behalf of the petitioner. He states that writ petitioner-appellant is not aggrieved by the direction of the learned Single Judge but - 2 - petitioner apprehends that the direction given by this Court that “pending matters against the petitioner should reach to a conclusion at the earliest” will give handle to the respondents to re-open the departmental proceedings which had already concluded. We are of the opinion that the apprehension of the appellant is absolutely misconceived. The observation aforesaid of this Court cannot be construed to mean that the respondents have been given liberty to re-open the departmental proceeding which has already been disposed of. It may be re-opened by the competent authority in accordance with law but for that the competent authority cannot take recourse of the observation of this Court referred to above. The appeal is misconceived and dismissed in limine. (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, ACJ.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) avin