IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.151 of 2011 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 10424 of 2009 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No. 644 of 2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 151 of 2011 ==================================================== 1. The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Punjab National Bank, Head Office-7, Bhikaji Kama Place, African Avenue, New Delhi. 2. The General Manager, H.R.D.D., Punjab National Bank, Head Office-7, Bhikaji Kama Place, African Avenue, New Delhi. 3. The Deputy General Manager, H.R.D.D., Punjab National Bank, Head Office-7, Bhikaji Kama Place, African Avenue, New Delhi. 4. The Circle Head (Assistant General Manager), Punjab National Bank, Biharsharif Circle, Ramchandrapur, Biharsharif. 5. The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch Office, Nagarnausha, District-Nalanda. ….. (Respondents) Appellants. Versus Lokesh Narayan, S/o Sri Saroj Kumar Singh, R/o Village-Taripar Bikram, P.S.-Bikram, District-Patna, Bihar. …….. (Petitioner) Respondent. ==================================================== APPEARANCE : For the Appellants : Mr. Abhishekh For the Respondent: Mr. B.Kumar with Mr. Ratnakar Jha, Advocates. ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3. 07.02.2011 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 644 of 2011: This application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the appellant Punjab National Bank for condonation of delay of 214 days occurred in filing the above Letters Patent Appeal. Learned advocate, Mr. Abhishekh has 2 appeared for the appellants. He submits that the delay in question has occurred on account of communication gap. The communication gap was caused on account of the death of the learned advocate who was representing the appellants before the learned single Judge. Learned advocate Mr. B.Kumar has appeared for the respondents. He has contested this application. In the submission of Mr. B. Kumar sufficient cause for the delay has not been made out by the appellants. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the appellants have made out sufficient cause for the delay. The delay is condoned. Interlocutory application stands disposed of. Letters Patent Appeal No. 151 of 2011: This appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 19th May 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in above CWJC No. 10424 of 2009. The Respondent-writ petitioner is the employee of the Appellant-Punjab National Bank & Others (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). In the year 2008 he took departmental examination for promotion to Junior Management Grade Scale-I. He passed in the said departmental examination but his promotion was withheld on account of pending disciplinary proceeding. In the disciplinary proceeding the writ petitioner was found to be guilty. By order dated 31.12.2008, he was visited with punishment of reduction in pay. Feeling aggrieved by his non-promotion, the 3 writ-petitioner filed above CWJC No. 10424 of 2009. He prayed for direction to the Bank to relieve the writ petitioner to join the promotional post in Junior Management Grade Scale-I. The petition was contested by the Bank. According to the Bank, in the writ petition the writ petitioner had suppressed the factum of the disciplinary action taken against him and the consequent punishment imposed upon him. In view of the Bipartite Settlement arrived at between the Bank and its employees, particularly Clause 3(b) thereof, the writ petitioner was not entitled to promotion till expiry of two years from the date of the punishment. In view of the aforesaid defence and the terms of settlement, the learned single Judge has directed the Bank to consider the case of promotion of the writ petitioner w.e.f. 1st January 2011 on expiry of two years from the date of the punishment. Feeling aggrieved, the Bank has preferred the present appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Abhishekh has appeared for the Bank. He has submitted that the direction issued by the learned single Judge is contrary to Clause -5 of the Settlement. Clause -5 of the Settlement provides for preparation of a panel of approved candidates for promotion to higher post in the Bank. It also provides that such panel shall be valid for the calendar year only and shall lapse automatically at the end of the year unless extended by mutual consent. Mr. Abhishekh has 4 submitted that on 31st December 2010 the panel in which the petitioner was included, has expired as envisaged by Clause 5 of the Settlement. The writ petitioner, therefore, cannot now be promoted unless he takes the departmental examination afresh. We are unable to agree with the submission. Clause 3(b) of the Settlement is quite clear and specific in this respect. It reads “in case of punishment being awarded for gross misconduct, he shall not be promoted and will not be eligible for being considered for promotion and officiating for two years from the date of punishment.” Mr. Abhishekh has candidly agreed that had the writ petitioner been exonerated he would have been promoted according to his placement in the panel irrespective of the expiry of the panel. In our opinion the same principle should apply in case of punishment. As expressly provided in the above referred Clause 3(b) of the Settlement. The petitioner was entitled to promotion after expiry of 2 years from the date of the punishment. Clause 3(b) and 5 of the Settlement operate in different fields. Clause 5 can not be read so as to defeat Clause 3(b) of the Settlement. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was eligible and was found suitable for promotion. On expiry of two years from the date of punishment, irrespective of the fact that the panel had lapsed by that time, the writ petitioner was entitled to promotion. In our opinion the order of the learned single 5 judge is in consonance with the aforesaid Clause 3(b) of the Settlement. No case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed. The parties will bear their own cost. Sujit (R.M.Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran,J.)