IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9216 of 2008 Abu Nasar Ansari, S/O- Late Abu Zaffar Ansari, r/o- village Surajpur, P.S.- Pratapganj, District- Supaul, at present Clerk-cum-Cashir, Area Office, Koshi Kshetriya gramin Bank, Supaul. Versus 1. Koshi Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Head Office, Purnea through its Chairman. 2. The Chairman, Koshi Kshetriya Gramin Bank (H.O.) Purnea. 3. The General Manager-cum-Disciplinary Authority, Koshi Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Head Office, Purnea. 4. Vijay Kumar Singh, s/o- name not known to the petitioner, Inquiry Officer, Koshi Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Purnea. 5. The Branch Manager, Koshi Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Sohander Hat Branch, District- Araria. 6. The Area Manager, Koshi Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Araria. 7. Sri Sachindar Raut, son of name not known to the petitioner, the then Branch Manager, Sohandar Hat Koshi Kshetriya Gramin Bank, District- Araria. For the petitioner : Mr. Tara Nath Jha, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the E.P.F. : Mr. Rama Shankar Pradhan, Sr. Advocate. ----------- 4 22.07.2011 Petitioner raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 27.3.2008 (Annexure-16) passed by the respondent General Manager, Koshi Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Purnea whereby, on conclusion of departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner, he was afflicted with the punishment of dismissal from Bank’s service. Petitioner, while serving as Clerk-cum-Cashier was placed under suspension by order dated 26.7.2001 (Annexure- 1) in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. This was followed by an F.I.R. lodged against him and others under diverse sections of the Indian Penal Code. Ultimately the respondents by resolution contained in Annexure-2 framed articles of charges on him which was served on him. A perusal 2 of the articles of charges show that petitioner was found involved in committing defalcation of different amounts by tampering with the ledger folio as well as account of the Bank. Petitioner sought for certain information which, according to him, was not given to him. Ultimately, he submitted his show cause and participated in the proceeding which culminated into submission of enquiry report wherein the charges were found to be proved. Accordingly, he was dismissed from service. The said order was assailed by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 7557 of 2006. It appears from the said order that the initiation of proceeding was challenged on diverse counts. One of the grounds of challenge was that the order impugned was passed without affording him opportunity to file second show cause. This Court negatived other submissions of the petitioner. However, in the penultimate paragraph of the order observed as under: “I, accordingly, direct that the petitioner should be given one month’s time after receipt/production of this order to file a reply to the second show cause notice and to bring before the authorities all facts and issues which he wishes to raise before them subject to what has been held above. The authorities concerned will pass speaking order in respect to the issues raised by the petitioner within a period of three months after receipt of the show cause. In the meantime, the order of dismissal as contained in Annexure-14 shall remain stayed.“ It is admitted position that petitioner was thereafter served with the second show cause notice which was duly responded by him as contained in Annexure-15. The authorities 3 in the light of the materials on record, including the second show cause notice filed by the petitioner, passed the impugned order which has been assailed in the present proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been violation of Rules of Natural Justice. This Court, therefore, should interfere in the matter. It is also contended that the authority, who passed the impugned order, was not authorized to pass the same. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that this Court on earlier occasion, after considering the entire aspect of the matter, directed for issuance of second show cause notice on the petitioner which was complied with and the reply of the petitioner filed pursuant thereto was taken into consideration and as such no fault can be found with the order impugned. It is further contended that the order is appealable in terms of Regulation 47 read with 48 of the Koshi Kshetriya Gramin Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulation (Revised) Regulation (for short “the Regulation”). It is submitted that the petitioner was Clerk-cum- Cashier and not an officer and as such the order was passed by the competent authority in accordance with the provisions contained in Regulation 40 of the said Regulation. I have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. This Court on the writ petition preferred by the petitioner directed for issuance of second show cause notice. The said 4 notice was served on the petitioner. The relevant document is Annexure-15. The impugned order reflects that the authority considered the reply filed by the petitioner pursuant to the said notice served on him in compliance of the order of this Court as contained in Annexure-14. It further appears on perusal of the provisions contained in the Regulation that the authority i.e. General Manager, is the competent authority in the matter of employees like the petitioner. This Court further finds that the Regulation itself provides an efficacious remedy of filing appeal thereagainst. In the light of discussions made above, this Court would decline to invoke its extraordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction to set aside the impugned order as contained in Annexure-16 as the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy in the shape of appeal which the petitioner has to avail. At this stage, Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Regulation 47(ii) of the Regulation, such appeal has to be preferred within 45 days. A stand has been taken that the petitioner would file the appeal within four weeks from today. While parting with the order, this Court observes that if any such appeal is filed within four weeks, the Appellate Court shall take into consideration that the petitioner was bona fidely pursuing his remedy before this Court. This Court would thus expect that appeal, if preferred within aforesaid time, would be 5 considered and disposed of on merit. The application stands disposed of with the directions/observations aforesaid. pkj (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)