IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7742 of 2011 =================================================== 1. Ravindra Nath Tripathy, son of Late Pandit Sheo Kumar Tripathy, R/o Tari Mohalla-P.S. Ara (Town), District-Ara at Bhojpur 2. Subhash Chandra Thakur, son of Late Awadhesh Kumar Thakur, R/o Mahabir Tola, P.S. Nawada, District-Bhojpur at Ara .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The Union Of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, New Delhi 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, New Delhi 3. The Governor, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai 4. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, NABARD, Mumbai 5. The Chief Vigilance Commissioner, Central Vigilance Commission, Vigilance Bhawan, G.P.O. Complex, Block A, I.N.A., New Delhi-100023. 6. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Punjab National Bank, Principal Office, Bhikhaji Kama Place, New Delhi 7. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Patna 8. Sri Paras Nath Singh, son of not known to the petitioner, presently posted as Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Patna 9. Chief Vigilence Officer, Punjab National Bank, Head Office, Bhikhasi Canath Place, New Delhi .... .... Respondents =================================================== 4 27-09-2011 The present writ petition has been filed by way of a “Public Interest Litigation” by the employees of Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank alleging some embezzlement of funds which are released by Govt. of India under the NABARD scheme for advancement of loan to the formers. It is also alleged that as the said scheme has not been extended by Govt. of India an attempt has been 2 made by the Bank to embezzle the funds by directing the Bank Managers of the Branches to the following effect which is quoted herein below: “they should debit the 25% amount from the amount receivable from Govt. of India account and credit the same to the account of the farmers even if they have not met the pre-condition of depositing of the 75% of the amount and by doing so on a rought estimate there shall be a loss of Rs.5 crores to the central Government. The only benefit by doing so is that NPA account of the Bank shall be lowered by 5 crores. This action is a clear violation of the scheme and same is with an intent to misappropriate the aforesaid amount and which can be ascertained from the account of the bank by merely assessing the fact that how much amount in each branch of Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank has been debited from the amount receivable from the Govt. of India account after 30.06.2010.” It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that all the respondents have already been noticed by this Court. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no.9 stating that upon receipt of the complaint from the complainant, he forwarded the same to the Deputy General Manager, Punjab National Bank, Zonal Audit Office, Patna for investigation on the complaint and to submit a report with regard to the allegation. The findings of the Investigating Officer has come by way of a Note dated 11.04.2011 and the same 3 has been forwarded to respondent no.9 i.e. Chief Vigilance Officer, Punjab National Bank. The Chief Vigilance Officer after having found that there are serious issues, has advised the General manager, Priority Sector & Lead Bank Division of Punjab National Bank to look after the issues under the supervision of Regional Rural Banks for taking quick action wherever required. It is also stated in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit that respondent no.9 has been informed by the Priority sector & Lead Bank Division (Regional Rural Banks Cell) that the matter has been taken up by them with the respondent no.7 for his response on the findings of the investigating officials and also stated that the matter is under further investigation in respect of certain issues raised in the complaint. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has insisted that this Court should direct the other agency like C.B.I. to investigate the matter. However, as we are satisfied with the statement made by respondent no.9 by way of filing a counter affidavit before this court, we are of the opinion that the 4 matter cannot be delved upon at this stage as it is premature to decide the issue. Under the above circumstances, we do not find any cause of action to interfere with the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. ASHWINI/- (T. Meena Kumari, J) (Vikash Jain, J)