IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1137 of 2011 Manoranjan Prasad, Son of Late Parmanand Prasad, Resident of Rajeev Nagar, P.S. Rajeev Nagar, District - Patna Versus 1. The Central Bank Of India through Deputy General Manager, Central Bank of India, Patna. Namely, S. Sridhar CMD 2. The Deputy General Manager, Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Patna, Maurya Lok Complex, B-Block 2nd Floor, Patna, District Patna. Namely, Sri R.B. Guptra 3. The Assistant General Manager-cum- Disciplinary Authority, Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, B- Block Maurya Lok Complex 2nd Floor, Patna, District Patna. Namely, K.B. Rangnathan 4. The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India Saharsa, Koshi Chowk, Sharasa, District Saharsa, Namely, Md. Yadav 5. The Senior Manager, Central Bank of India, Rukunpura Branch, Rukunpura, District Patna, namely, O.P. Mishra 6. Sri S.K. Terarbe, Senior Manager, Central Bank of India, Rajendra Nagar Branch- cum- Enquiry officer, Patna 7. Union of India through its Finance Secretary, New Delhi ---------------------------------- 02/ 16.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This contempt petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of the orders of the High Court dated 23.11.2010, Annexure-1 as neither Budhan Rai was examined in the proceeding as witness to support the charge levelled against the petitioner nor opportunity was given to the petitioner 2 to produce Budhan Rai as defence witness nor the proceeding was concluded within the time granted by this Court. Aforesaid contention appears to be incorrect in view of the letter of the Enquiry Officer addressed to the petitioner dated 16.3.2011 whereunder instruction was given to the petitioner to produce Budhan Rai as defence witness but said Budhan Rai was not produced as defence witness after issue of letter dated 16.3.2011, although before passing of the order by this Court, petitioner produced Budhan Rai on 14.8.2010 for his examination. Counsel for the Bank invited my attention to the order dated 23.11.2010, Annexure-1 passed by this Court and stated that in compliance of the said order, Budhan Rai should have been produced for examination after the orders of the High Court and not earlier. Learned counsel for the Bank further submitted that proceeding could not be concluded within the time fixed by this Court as having filed the contempt petition on 9.3.2011, petitioner under letter Annexure-A to the show cause 3 asked the enquiry officer to await the decision of the contempt petition. Be that as it may, failure to examine Budhan Rai as witness in the departmental proceeding shall be considered when appropriate final order is passed in the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner and challenged before the appropriate forum. The contempt petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)