IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.118 of 2010 Nand Kishore Singh, Son of late Chandrik Kumar Singh, Resident of J.M.C.S.I., State Bank of India, posted at Kadamukan Branch Till 03.08.2002 and residing at C.C.3, P.C. Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna-20. --------- Petitioner/Appellant/Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through Central Board Chairman, State Bank of India, Head Office, Bombay. 2. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, at judges court road, Patna. 3. The Deputy General Manager State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Fraser Road, Patna. 4. The Assistant General Manager, Region-1 & IV, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Fraser Road, Patna-1. 5. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Kadamkuan Branch Patna-800004. -----------Respondent/Respondent/Opposite Parties ----------- 4 15.09.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court would find that the grievance of the petitioner against the following portion of the order dated 15.4.2010 in LPA No. 1420 of 2009:- “Ordinarily, we would advert to the merits of the application for limitation but Mr. Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the employer respondent submitted that the services of the appellant has already been dispensed with.” is wholly unfounded, inasmuch as, what was sought to be conveyed and was expressed by this Court was that the petitioner was no longer continuing in service of the Bank. Counsel for the petitioner even today submits that on that day the petitioner was not continuing in service rather an appeal was pending against an order dated 6.3.2003. Counsel for the Bank at this stage would point out that there is no averment in the review application as with regard to the 2 filing of an appeal against the order dated 6.3.2003, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner in terms of Rule 40(B) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules was given notice to resume duty within a period of thirty days failing which it could be deemed that he had voluntarily abandoned his service amounting to voluntary resignation from services. In the opinion of this Court, the disposal of L.P.A. No. 1420 of 2009 by an order dated 15.4.2010 on the ground that the petitioner’s service had been dispensed with by the bank, was factually correct, inasmuch as, his mode of removal was never sought to be explained in the said order. With the aforementioned clarification, this review application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)