IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1354 of 2010 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA through the General Manager, NW -1, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Patna 2. The Deputy General Manager (Vigilance),State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Patna 3. The Assistant General Manager (Administration), State Bank of India, Administrative Office, Judges’ Court Road, Patna 4. The Enquiry Officer-cum- Assistant General Manager (Enquiry) State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Patna ..........Respondents/ Appellants Versus RUPAK KUMAR, son of Braj Bhushan Mishra, Hanuman Nagar, Kankarbagh, Police Station – Patrakar Nagar, PO Lohia Nagar, District – Patna ......... Petitioner/Respondent ----------- 03- 4/4/2011 Heard Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha for the appellants, and Mr. Shekhar Singh for the respondents. This appeal has been preferred under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature of Patna, and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 29.7.2010, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 12045 of 2010, whereby the writ petition has been disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to raise his submission before the Chief General Manager of the appellant Bank. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The respondent (the writ petitioner) was appointed on a Subordinate Class VI post in the appellant Bank. After the respondent had joined, the appellant discovered that he had made certain misrepresentations at the time of his selection for the post leading to a charge-sheet against him. The respondent admitted his guilt. Therefore, the appellant issued second show-cause notice to him indicating the 2 punishment to be imposed on him. The respondent did not respond to the same. However, after some time the appellant cancelled the second show-cause notice perhaps evincing intention to start afresh from the stage of submission of the written statement by the employee. The respondent preferred the writ petition which has been disposed of by the learned single Judge with the direction to the Chief General Manager, Bihar Circle, to examine the grievance of the respondent. 3. We are of the view that disciplinary proceeding has to be conducted according to the Rules and the prescribed procedure. It invariably lays down the hierarchy of authorities for the purpose. In such a situation, the learned single Judge has erred in creating a new authority in the matter which is inconsistent with the Rules and the prescribed procedure. We disagree with the approach of the learned writ court. Furthermore, law is well settled that the disciplinary authority is always entitled to recall a part or whole of the disciplinary proceeding and commence afresh. The impugned action of the appellant recalling the second show-cause notice is, therefore, fit to be upheld. 4. In the result, this appeal is allowed. We disagree with the order of the learned single Judge. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S K Katriar ) ( S P Singh ) mrl 3