IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4221 of 2003 RAGHUBANSH PRASAD SINGH Versus THE ADMINISTRATOR,B.S.CO-OPERA ----------- 5 13.4.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent- Bank. The respondent- Bank in order to encourage recovery of loans by its employees has framed certain guidelines by letter no. 2087 dated 27.5.1996 for the years 1995-96. It provides that an employee who has effected recovery of loan above 30 per cent and below 40 per cent, he shall be visited with punishment of ‘censure’. The respondents in their counter affidavit do not dispute the position that the recovery effected by the petitioner was 30.4 per cent. He has yet been given punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect, a punishment to be imposed on those whose recovery has been between 10 per cent to 20 percent. If the Bank itself has framed guidelines for recovery and punishment thereupon, a punishment imposed contrary to the same, is not sustainable. This court expects the respondent- Bank a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India not to behave like a private litigant. It is the bounden duty of the Bank to assist the court in dispensation of justice. The respondent- Bank has virtually behaved in the manner of private adversary litigant having the luxury of filing and opposing cases for the mere sake of it at the expense of the tax payer. This court was inclined to impose costs on the bank for generating litigation by - 2 - without justification thwarting the genuine claim of the writ petitioner based on the guidelines framed by the Bank. Although in the counter affidavit it virtually conceeds the same, yet the bank seeks to contest the writ application. The writ application is allowed. The punishment imposed upon the petitioner by order dated 24.3.2001 is set aside. Any recovery effected from the petitioner in pursuance of the same is directed to be returned with eight per cent interest within a maximum period of twelve weeks, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 10 per cent till the date of payment. Liberty is given to the Managing Director of the respondent- Bank to hold an administrative enquiry and fix responsibility on those who passed the impugned order contrary to the guidelines of the Bank itself, and take appropriate steps for recovery of the amount of interest from the salary of the erring official and if he be not in service by proceeding under the provision of Public Demand Recovery Act as the case may be. In no event shall the Bank bear the liability for the interest. Obligation of the Bank shall only be confined to the compliance of the order of this court within the time fixed. shahid (Navin Sinha, J)