IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.369 of 2003 PRABHU NARAYAN VIDYARTHI, SON OF LATE GURU SHARAN SINGH YADAV, AN OFFICER IN NALANDA GRAMIN BANK, GONAMA BRANCH IN THE DISTRICT OF NALANDA :--- PETITIONER. Versus 1. NALANDA GRAMIN BANK THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, BIHAR SHARIF, NALANDA. 2. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NALANDA GRAMIN BANK AT BIHARSHARIF, DISTRICT- NALANDA. 3. CHAIRMAN-CUM-DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, GRAMIN BANK, RAMCHANDARPUR, BIHARSHARIF, DISTRICT- NALANDA :--- RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Senior Advocate & M/S Bijay Kumar Pandey & Amaresh Kumar, Advocates. For the Bank : M/S Prashant Vedasen & Subhash Chandra Bose, Advocates. ====== 9. 06.10.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Nalanda Gramin Bank which has since been rechristened as Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as the “Bank”). 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served as an officer in the Gonawan Branch of the Bank. He is aggrieved by the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 30.7.2002, Annexure-6. Pursuant to charge-sheet dated 12.01.1999, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit he has been brought at the lowest of the scale admissible to him under aforesaid punishment order dated 30.7.2002, Annexure-6. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the appellate order which is communicated to him under memo dated 16.11.2002, Annexure-8, whereunder - 2 - the appeal filed against the punishment order dated 30.7.2002, Annexure-6 has been rejected. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from perusal of the charge-sheet, Enquiry Report as also the orders impugned it will appear that petitioner is neither alleged nor found to have misappropriated any amount of the Bank. He has rather been proceeded against for undertaking advancement contrary to the norms but such advancement made by the petitioner did not cause any loss to the Bank. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that from the enquiry report it will appear that the charges levelled against the petitioner has been found to be proved as petitioner did not examine the witnesses to disprove the charges. It is submitted that such approach of the Enquiry Officer to ask the proceedee to disprove the charge is wholly unknown to the service jurisprudence. In this connection it is further pointed out that the charges levelled against the petitioner ought to have proved by the Presenting Officer by examining the Mukhiya on whose report it has been concluded that the advance was made to fictitious person. Mukhiya having not been examined inspite of his report such report ought not to have relied upon by the Bank. - 3 - 3. Counsel for the Bank supported the findings recorded in the Enquiry Report and the orders passed relying on the Enquiry Report. He further submitted that from perusal of the Enquiry Report it will be crystal clear that petitioner proceeded to make the advance although he was not authorized to make such advance, as such power is vested in the Branch Manager and not in the officer posted in the Branch. 4. In rejoinder, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Branch Manager was on leave and during the period of his leave the advance was made by the petitioner to subserve the public interest as villagers required the advance for proceeding with their agricultural operation which was to begin within the time and the season meant for such operation. 5. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the Bank it is quite apparent that the advance made by the petitioner has since been realized by the Bank with interest due thereon, as such, the Bank has not suffered any loss in the transaction(s) advanced by the petitioner. Accordingly, while maintaining the findings of the authorities it is directed that the authorities should revisit the - 4 - punishment imposed on the petitioner and impose on him punishment other than dismissal removal and reversion both in rank and scale and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as early as possible, in any case within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)