IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7180 of 2009 Rajeev Ranjan, S/o- Late Bijoy Shankar Prasad, resident of R.B.S.S.S. Road, Mundichak, P.S.-Ishakchak, Town & District-Bhagalpur. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Munger-811201, through its Chairman. 2. The Board of Director-cum-Appellate Authority, Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Munger-811201, through its Chairman. 3. The Chairman-cum-the Disciplinary Authority, Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Munger. 4. The General Manger, Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Munger-811201. -Respondents. ----------- 02 29.06.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.N.Jha, learned Senior counsel for the respondent-Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank. The petitioner was proceeded against in a disciplinary proceeding, which found him to be guilty. As the remedy available to him he filed an appeal before the Board of the said Bank. From annexure-4, it is clear that the Appellate Authority met on 12.09.2008, they considered the matter and held that it was a fit a case in which the order of the Disciplinary Authority be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Disciplinary Authority, which was appointed afresh. It further directed that status quo, as obtaining on the day of the setting up enquiry, be restored with immediate effect. The appeal thus stood disposed of. Suddenly, without notice and without a speaking order, it appears that the Board again met on 20.03.2009 and took up the appeal (which had already been disposed of) purporting to be in terms of regulation 48 of the regulations and summarily rejected the appeal and 2 upheld the penalty as imposed. This was communicated to the petitioner by Annexure-5. Petitioner is aggrieved by the said action. On behalf of petitioner, it is submitted that when once the Board, which was the competent Appellate Authority, took up the appeal and disposed of the matter by order dated 12.09.2008 setting aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority and remaining the matter granting status quo, as indicated above, the Appellate Authority finally disposed of the matter and became functus officio. They had no jurisdiction to substantively review their own order and that too without notice to the petitioner and that too without a reasoned order. Having considered the matter, in my view, the contention of the petitioner is correct. Once the appeal was disposed of and the mater was remanded to the Disciplinary Authority for a fresh decision in the matter the Appellate Authority became functus officio. There being no provision granting authority to substantively review their order, there being no procedural infirmity. The Appellate Authority lacked inherent jurisdiction to review their order. The exercise of power of review was, thus, wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. The order suffers from vice of Coram non-judice. In fairness to Sri Jha, learned Senior counsel appearing for the bank, I must note his argument only to be rejected. He submits that the appeal having been disposed of but some glaring facts became to the knowledge of the Appellate Authority which persuaded the Appellate Authority to review their order and dismissed the appeal, as such, the exercise of power being bona fidely should not be interfered 3 with. Firstly, all these facts that subsequent materials came on record are not apparent from the order impugned. The order impugned itself is absolutely a non-speaking order. Nothing therein is stated as to why the order was being reviewed and why the appeal was being dismissed. It is well settled that a public order made publicly cannot be supplemented by subsequent affidavits of facts, which do not appear from the order itself, otherwise an invalid order in inception made become invalid by passage of time. This is not permissible. Secondly, there being inherent lack of jurisdiction. The Appellate Authority having become functus officio. They had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of any subsequent facts or materials whatever they may be. It was not a case of procedural infirmity, when the first order was passed, thus, the Appellate Authority inherently lacked jurisdiction to review their order. In view of the aforesaid position in law, the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-5, cannot be sustained and it is set aside accordingly. The order of the Appellate Authority dated 12.09.2008 is restored including the order of status quo, as passed therein. The authorities would now be well advised to follow the directions, as contained in the appellate order dated 12.09.2008 expeditiously and into letter and spirit. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)