IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.59 of 2008 ------------ 1. The State Bank India through its Chairman, (Central Office), Corporate Centre, Mumbai. 2. The General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Patna. 3. The Deputy General Manager (Vigilance), State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Patna, 4. The Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Bhagalpur, 5. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Region IV, Zonal Office, Bhagalpur …….Respondents – Appellants Versus Krishna Ram, son of Late Dashrath Ram, resident of Village – Bekidih Road, P.S. and District – Giridih, then posted as Messenger, S.B.I. Tenughat Branch ………Petitioner – Respondent ----------- For the appellants : Mr. Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Birju Prasad, Advocate ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 25th September, 2008. We heard the counsel for the appellants and counsel for the respondent. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, suffice it to say that upon conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, vide order dated 23rd June, 1999, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of “Dismissal without notice” upon the delinquent in terms of paragraph - 2 - 21(iv)(a) of the Sixth Bipartite Settlement dated 14th February, 1995. In his order, the disciplinary authority further held that the period of suspension shall be treated as such, i.e., not on duty and delinquent shall not be eligible for any salary, allowances or other benefits for the said period except the subsistence allowance already drawn by him. The delinquent was informed that he could prefer an appeal under paragraph 521(12) of Sastry Award before the appellate authority, if he is aggrieved by the order of punishment. 3. The delinquent preferred an appeal to the Deputy General Manager. It appears that the appellate authority tentatively considered the matter (as recorded in the communication dated 8th December, 1999 – Annexure -10) and sought necessary advice from the Head Office. 4. On 12th June, 2000, a communication seems to have been sent to the appellate authority advising him to make a decision on the merit of the case keeping in view the guidelines issued by the Central Office regarding Staff accountability in the case of fraud. Subsequently, in the communication dated 26th May, 2000, the appellate authority seems to have been impressed that the Head Office was not in favour to allow the delinquent to continue in Bank’s service. 5. The appellate authority passed the order on 7th April, 2000 moderating the order of penalty of dismissal to the punishment of removal from service in terms of clause 21(iv)(b) of the Sixth bi- partite settlement. Aggrieved by this order, the delinquent ( present - 3 - respondent) preferred writ petition before this court. The single Judge considered the matter and devoted substantial time in considering the aspect that the decision making process by quasi judicial authority could not have been influenced by extraneous agency. He held that the tentative order ( indicated in Annexure 10), be treated as final order of the appellate authority and quashed the order dated 7th April, 2000 (Annexure 13). 6. The State Bank of India and its functionaries have challenged the order of the Single Judge in present letters appeal. 7. The view of the Single Judge that the decision making process of a quasi judicial authority could not have been influenced by extraneous agency is unexceptionable. This legal position is not even challenged by the counsel for the appellants. The question is: having held that what should have been the consequential order ? In our view, natural consequence would have been to remit the matter back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration. We find it difficult to approve the view of the Single Judge to treat the tentative decision made by the appellate authority as noticed in Annexure- 10 as final order. It could not have been so because no final decision was taken by the appellate authority by that order. 8. Without going into the matter further, we are satisfied that the appeal (Annexure 8) has to be restored back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 9. Consequently, L.P.A. is allowed in part. The order - 4 - passed by the Single Judge on 6th November, 2007 is modified by remitting the appeal (Annexure 8) to the Deputy General Manager (the appellate authority) for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The appellate authority shall consider and dispose of the appeal uninfluenced by any communication received from the higher authorities. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/