IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.652 of 2005 Ratan Kumar Mishra son of sri Chandra Kishore Mishra, resident of village and P.O.Rohar, P.S. Biraul, Dist. Darbhanga. ---Petitioner Versus 1. Mithila Kshetriya Gramin Bank through its chairman, kachahari Road, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga. 2. The Chairman cum Disciplinary Authority, Mithila Kshetriya Gramin Bank kachahari Road, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga 3. The Board of Directors-cum-Appellate Authority through its Chairman namely Mr. M.R.Guha, Mithila Kshetriya Gramin Bank kachahari Road, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga 4. Mr. M.R.Guha, the Chairman, Appellate Authority of Board of Directors, Mithila Kshetriya Gramin Bank kachahari Road, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga 5. The Uttar Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank through its chairman (Head office) Kalambagh, Muzaffarpur. 6. The Chairman cum Disciplinary Authority, Uttar Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank Kalambagh Road , Muzaffarpur 7. The Board of Directors-cum-Appellate Authority through its Chairman namely Mr.R.K. Ojha, Uttar Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank Kalambagh Road , Muzaffarpur 8. Mr. R.K. Ojha, Regional Manager, Central Bank of India-cum the chairman, Appellate Authority of Board of Directors, Uttar Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank Kalambagh Road , Muzaffarpur --Respondents. ---------------------------------- 05 04.11.2011 Heard Mr. B.P. Pandey, learned counsel appearing in support of the application. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent- Bihar Mithila Kshetriya Gramin Bank ( for short „Bank‟). Petitioner was proceeded against and dismissed from service. His appeal also failed. Aggrieved thereby he approached this Court in CWJC No. 12535 of 2002. This Court by order dated 13.05.2004 (Annexure-12) disposed of the said writ petition in the following terms:- “Taking into consideration that in some of the matters review applications were allowed when this Court asked the learned counsel for the respondents that why step motherly treatment is being extended to the petitioner, it was submitted by the counsel for the respondents that this Court may set aside the order contained in Annexure-1 and the order passed in the appeal of the petitioner 2 contained in Annexure-2 order dated 27.4.1995 with a direction to the appellate forum of the Bank to give hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh order and award punishment, in case he is found guilty, commensurate to misconduct. To this offer learned counsel for the petitioner concedes. Under the circumstances Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 are hereby quashed. The petitioner who has joined services in response to Annexure-2 shall immediately be removed from the services. He shall immediately be removed from services because now under the orders passed by the disciplinary authority he stands terminated.Within a period of four months from today the appellate authority after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner shall pass a fresh order on the appeal of the petitioner. It is, however, made clear that neither Annexure-2 nor Annexure-1 shall come in the way of the appellate forum in passing the orders.” In the light of the said order, the petitioner again approached the appellate authority and the said authority of the respondent Bank passed order(s) contained in annexures- 13 and 13/1. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent- Bank detailed order passed on the appeal proceeding of the petitioner (Annexure C/4) has been annexed. Relevant part of the order reads as under:- “The sub committee met on 16.08.2004 and 10.09.2004 and called Mr. Ratan Kumar Mishra, CSOE to present his case in person before the committee. He was heard by the committee and his statement was recorded. The sub committee had detailed discussions on the appeal of Mr. Ratan Kumar Mishra, CSOE and gone through all the charges and punishment given by the Disciplinary Authority. After detailed discussions on the appeal the committee has come to an unanimous conclusion that maximum charges leveled on the CSOE stands proved to which he himself has accepted in his appeal dated 2.04.1994 and the punishment given by the Disciplinary authority is appropriate. However, considering the hardship 3 which the family members of the CSOE will suffer, we purely on humanitarian ground modify the punishment that instead of dismissal from service Shri Ratan Kumar Mishra, CSOE will be reinstated in bank‟s service on following conditions: 1. Mr. Ratan Kumar Mishra, CSOE will be reinstated at the lowest scale of pay of Scale I officer of the Bank. 2. Since the order of Honorable High Court of Patna is based on the consent given by Mr. Ratan Kumar Mishra, CSOE knowing well the consequences of the order, the entire period of dismissal till his reinstatement by this order will be treated as leave without pay. However, looking to the hardship to the family of the CSOE the salary and benefits ( excluding Leave encashment) paid to him during this period will not be recovered. 3. There will be no ban on his participation in the promotion process of the bank as and when it takes place.” Learned counsel for the petitioner made diverse submissions to assail the aforesaid order. It has been contended that the observation/direction made by this Court in CWJC No. 12535 of 2002 has not been carried out in letter and spirit by the respondent. It is next contended that the petitioner has not been directed to be paid anything for further period to remain out of job. On going through the order passed by the appellate authority (Annexure- C/4), this Court finds that considering the stand taken by the petitioner a lenient view of the matter has been taken by the authority. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to invoke its extraordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction to interfere with the said order. The application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)