IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.17 of 2008 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE NAWADA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE. BANK LTD. NAWADA P.S. & DISTRICT NAWADA ….. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector-Cum-Administrative Officer, The Nawada Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Nawada ….. Respondent/ Opposite Parties 3. Arjun Sharma son of Late Ram Lakhan Singh, resident of village Khaira P.S.- Kauakole, District- Nawada ….. Petitioner/Opposite Parties ----------- 07 11.02.2009 A Application has been filed by the Managing Director, Nawada Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Nawada, District- Nawada for reviewing the order dated 2.11.2007. The petitioner had challenged the order dated 25.7.2001 issued vide Memo No. 435 by which his suspension has been revoked by the District-cum-Administrative Officer, Nawada Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Nawada. When the case was listed for admission, counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 i.e. Nawada Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Nawada was not present in the Court and the matter was heard ex-parte. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner at that stage in the writ application has made wrong submissions before this Court, inasmuch it has been stated by him that the order impugned has been passed without holding departmental proceeding. On the basis of submissions made by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in the writ - 2 - petition, this Court passed an order that the impugned order revoking the suspension and inflicting punishment on the petitioner could not have been passed without a departmental proceeding. As a consequence of quashing the order of suspension and infliction of punishment this Court also held the petitioner would be entitled to the entire salary during the suspension period and the increment which had been stopped by virtue of the order dated 25.7.2001. This Court also observed that since order of punishment has been quashed and the petitioner had retired on 30.11.2001 the petitioner would be entitled to payment of all retiral dues. In the review application, it has been stated that the petitioner has suppressed the fact that the departmental proceeding had been initiated against him and wrong submissions were made in the Court. These facts have been brought to the notice of this Court through this review application and this Court finds that the counsel was unfair to the Court and has misused his position as a counsel to mislead the Court. Having come to this finding, this Court has no alternative but to review the order dated 2.11.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12283 of 2001. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Managing Director of the Nawada Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Nawada, submits that a departmental enquiry was held and in the departmental enquiry the petitioner was found - 3 - guilty. After holding the departmental enquiry and considering the findings in the enquiry report the Managing Director of the Bank aforesaid had passed the order dated 25.7.2000 issued vide Memo No. 435. It is now argued that the no second cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The punishment is that the petitioner would not be entitled to his full pay during suspension and his increment has been withheld for one year. Counsel of the Bank aforesaid submits that the punishment inflicted is of minor punishment. I, therefore, find that the petitioner would not be entitled to challenge the manner and procedure of holding the departmental enquiry on the ground that second show cause was not issued to him. The petitioner by virtue of the wrong submissions and facts placed before this Court has in fact lost right to raise technical points for challenging the order of punishment inflicted on 25.7.2001. In the result, this Court reviews the order passed on 2.11.2007 in C.W.J.C. No. 12283 of 2001 and recalls the order quashing Memo No. 435 dated 25.7.2001. The consequence of this order would be that the Nawadah Central Co-operative Bank would be entitled to act and calculate the dues of the petitioner on the basis of Memo No. 435 dated 25.7.2001. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner had the audacity filed a contempt application in this Court for compliance of the order dated 2.11.2007. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party in - 4 - the review application undertakes to withdraw the contempt application forthwith. The review application is allowed. The cost of Rs.5, 000/- is to be paid by the Opposite Party No.3 to the Patna High Court Legal Aid Committee within a period of one month. P.K. (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)