IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4816 of 2010 VIJOY BAHADUR SINHA @ BIJAY BAHADUR SINHA S/O LATE CAPTAIN RAJENDRA PRASAD SINHA R/O VILL MANOHAR BASANT, DISTT-SARAN AT CHAPRA Versus 1. THE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH IT'S CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR H.O.MUMBAI 2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER & DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, BANK OF INDIA PATNA MAIN BRANCH, UDAY BHAWAN, FRAZER ROAD, PATNA-800001 3. THE CHIE MANAGER (HR) BANK OF INDIA CHANAKYA PLACE, VIR CHAND PATEL MARG, PATNA , BIHAR 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA SOAN BRANCH, DISTT-BUXAR ----------- 04. 16.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bank of India(hereinafter referred to as the Bank). 2. Counsel for the petitioner states that while passing the order dated 26.12.2009, Annexure-10 in the light of the earlier order of this Court dated 26.10.2009, the Assistant General Manager has not considered the reasonings given in support of the finding of acquittal recorded by this Court under judgment dated 30.4.2009, Annexure-7, whereunder this Court found the occurrence of rape to be untrue for the failure of the prosecutrix to make statement about the occurrence to her husband as also to the neighbours who did not even support the occurrence before the Investigating Agency in their statement under Section-161 Cr.P.C. This Court further noticed the fact that the occurrence was reported to the police after seven days. The Disciplinary Authority without considering aforesaid aspect of the matter maintained the discharge order on the ground that petitioner was earlier convicted for the offence of rape and later acquitted by this Court with reference to the compromise entered into by and between the prosecutrix and the petitioner. While doing so the Disciplinary Authority failed to notice the fact that notwithstanding the compromise this Court disbelieved the - 2 - very occurrence for failure to report the occurrence for about seven days as also for failure of the husband and the neighbours of the prosecutrix to support the occurrence before the Investigating Agency. 3. In response to the aforesaid submission learned counsel for the Bank submitted that the submission noted above can be better appreciated if the matter is relegated to the appellate authority, who is General Manager of the Bank stationed at Patna. 4. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the Bank, I dispose of the writ application directing the petitioner to file appeal against the order dated 26.12.2009, Annexure-10 before the General Manager of the Bank, who should condone the delay if any in filing the appeal and thereafter proceed to consider the matter in the light of the findings recorded by this Court under judgment dated 30.4.2009, Annexure-7 disbelieving the occurrence for the failure of the prosecutrix to report the matter to the police for about seven days as also for failure of the husband and neighbours of the prosecutrix to support the occurrence before the Investigating Agency, although the husband and the neighbours are alleged to have been present at the time of occurrence. The appeal should be filed before the General Manager within two weeks from today and thereafter the same should be disposed of as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt of the memo of appeal before the General Manager. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)