IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.824 of 2008 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6486 of 2006 =================================================== 1. The State Bank Of India, Madam Cama Road, Corporate Centre, Mumbai through the Chairman 2. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, West of Gandhi Maidan, Patna 3. The General Manager (D & PB), State Bank of India, Local Head Office, West of Gandhi Maidan, Patna 4. The Deputy General, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Patna .... .... Respondents-Appellants Versus Kamla Kant Verma, son of Late Ganga Prasad, resident of Block-C, Flat No.401, Char Minar Apartment, Rajendra Nagar, Road No.12, Post – Rajendra Nagar, District-Patna .... .... Respondent =================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants: Mr. Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. P. K. Verma, Advocate 12 18-10-2011 The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 21.08.2008 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6486 of 2006 wherein the petitioner-respondent herein has chosen to question order dated 06.09.2001 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) and order dated 31.12.1999 (annexure-6 to the writ petition). Six sets of charges were brought up against the petitioner-respondent herein. An enquiry was initiated. In the enquiry report, the enquiry officer did not find any of the charges proved except charge no.4. But however, the disciplinary authority having not agreed with the conclusion 2 arrived at by the Enquiry Officer has chosen to issue show cause to the petitioner-respondent herein vide Memo no. DGM/P/Ps/35 dated 11.11.99 indicating the reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiring Officer and also directed the respondent- herein to submit his comments within seven days of receipt of said letter. The matter has been contested by the appellant Bank before the learned Single Judge but the learned Single Judge has chosen to allow the writ petition and remand the matter back to the disciplinary authority for issuing fresh show cause notice on the charges levelled against him and after considering the said show cause the authority will pass an appropriate order. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank that a show cause notice has already been issued to the respondent vide Memo No. DGM/P/Ps/35 dated 11.11.99 (Annexure- 3) but the respondent has opted to take V.R.S. on 01.04.2001 and thereafter has chosen to file the writ petition in the year 2006, merely after a period of five years after having accepted all the V.R.S. benefits. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has contended that the reasons as 3 indicated in the show cause by the disciplinary authority for disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiring Officer cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the reasons given by the disciplinary authority are perverse. It is also submitted that so far as delay is concerned, as the respondent had to attend his personal function, like marriage of his daughter, hence, there was a delay of five years. In light of the above background, we are of the opinion that except the reasoning adduced by the disciplinary authority before us there is no other material available before this Court to come to the conclusion that the reasons are perversive in nature and as the Apex Court has observed in the case of State of Rajasthan v. M.C. Saxena reported in A.I.R. 1998 SC 1150 that the order cannot be found fault with on the ground of perverse unless they are actually perverse in nature. In absence of any material available before this Court with regard to perversity of such conclusion of the disciplinary authority as well as taking note of the submission made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank that respondent has already opted to take V.R.S. on 01.04.2001 and has chosen to file the writ petition in the year 2006, it goes without saying that there was a delay of five years in approaching 4 this Court after obtaining V.R.S. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the order of learned Single Judge has to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside and the appeal is allowed. ASHWINI/- (T. Meena Kumari, J) (Vikash Jain, J)