IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.998 of 2008 1. Bihar State Co-opt. Bank Ltd., Ashok Raj Path, Patna through its Managing Director 2. Managing Director, Bihar State Cooperative Bank Limited, Ashok Raj Path, Patna 3. Deputy General Manager (Personnel and Administration), Bihar State Cooperative Bank Limited, Ashok Raj Path, Patna 4. Branch Manager, Bihar State Cooperative Bank Limited, Musallahpur Hat Branch, Patna …………… Appellants Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Suraj Prasad, son of late Ramphal Das, residing in the house of Sri Harendra Prasad Singh, Dr. Narayan Prasad Lane, Koiri Tola, P.O. Gulzarbagh, P.S. Alamganj, District Patna ………….. Respondents For the appellants : Mr. Rajesh Prasad Choudhary, Advocate ----------- 3 20-01-2009 I.A.No.7555 of 2008 This application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands allowed. Respondents – appellants aggrieved by the order dated 11th July, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC. No.7754 of 2005 setting aside the order of dismissal have preferred this appeal under Clause – 10 of the Letters Patent. - 2 - Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the writ petitioner – respondent is an employee of the Bihar State Co-operative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Bank”). An inquiry was conducted by the Managing Director personally in regard to the certain misconduct committed by him and by order dated 16th March, 2005, the Managing Director passed the order of dismissal. Writ petitioner challenged the said order by filing the writ application , inter alia, contending that in view of Clause - 33 of the Staff Regulation, the inquiry ought to have been conducted by the Secretary and not the Managing Director of the Bank. This submission found favour with the learned Single Judge, who had quashed the order of dismissal, observing that the Managing Director in terms of the Regulation is not authorized to make inquiry. While assailing the order of the learned Single Judge, Mr. Choudhary appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the Managing Director under the circumstances had no option but to conduct the inquiry himself. We do not find any substance in the said submission of the learned counsel. - 3 - Clause – 33 of the Regulation specifically provides that in case of ministerial staff, the inquiry shall be conducted by the Secretary. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge is right in holding that the Managing Director lacks jurisdiction to conduct the inquiry. Mr. Choudhary then submits that while setting aside the order of dismissal, the learned Single Judge ought not to have directed for payment of full salary for the period 8.2.2005 till 16.3.2005. The dismissal of the writ petitioner was found to be bad. In such circumstances, it is within the discretion of the learned Single Judge to direct for payment of salary. We are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge while exercising discretion did not err in directing for payment of salary for the aforesaid period. We do not find any merit in the appeal. It is dismissed, accordingly. Neyaz/- C.K. Prasad, ACJ. S. K. Sharma, J.