IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16137 of 2010 RAM BABU SINGH, SON OF LATE RAGHO SINGH, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHAGWATPUR, P.S. CHANDI, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR, RETIRED AS SPECIAL ASSISTANT, STATE BANK OF INDIA, MAIN BRANCH, ARA IN THE DISTRICT OF BHOJPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, BIHAR, WEST OF GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA. 2. GENERAL MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION), STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, BIHAR, WEST OF GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA. 3. APPELLATE AUTHORITY & DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (O & C, NW-1), DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING SECTION, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, STATE BANK OF INDIA, JUDGES COURT ROAD, PATNA. 4. ASSISTANT GERNAL MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION)-CUM- DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, STATE BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, JUDGES COURT ROAD, PATNA. 5. CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, MAIN BRANCH, ARA IN THE DISTRICT OF BHOJPUR. 6. MR. A.K. SINHA, SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, ENQUIRY OFFICE-CUM-CHIEF MANAGER- CUM-DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, BIHAR, WEST OF GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA. 7. MR. VEVEKANAND, SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, PRESENTLY POSTED AS BRANCH MANAGER, UNDER MUZAFFARPUR MODULE, BUT NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AS TO IN WHICH BRANCH HE IS POSED, THROUGH ITS GENRAL MANAGER, MUZAFFARUR MODULE, STATE BANK OF INDIA, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, MUZAFFARPUR. FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. ANJANI KUMAR, ADVOCATE. FOR THE S.B.I.: MR. KAUSHLENDRA KR. SINHA,ADVOATE. ----------- 02. 27.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ Bank ) who has 2 prayed for time to file counter affidavit as the case has been listed for the first time but considering the nature of the order which this court is proposing to pass, such prayer, is refused. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Authority and Deputy General Manager ( O & C, NW-I), dated 08.6.2010, Annexure-1, whereunder the appeal filed against the Punishment Order dated 30.7.2009, Annexure-2 directing recovery of Rs.3,40,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Forty Thousand ) from the Provident Fund amount of the petitioner has been disposed of modifying the penalty directing recovery of only Rs. 3,00,000/ (Three Lakhs) and refund of Rs. 40,000/- (Forty thousand ). 3. Counsel for the petitioner assailed the order dated 8.6.2010, Annexure-1 on the ground that petitioner had earlier approached this court against the punishment order dated 30.7.2009, Annexure-2 by filing CWJC No.5524 of 2010 contending that he did not handle the drop box on the relevant date which was handled by Sri. Vevekanand. The writ case was disposed of under order dated 6.4.2010, Annexure-11 directing the petitioner to assail the aforesaid order dated 3 30.7.2009, Annexure-2 by filing appeal by supplementing the earlier Memo of Appeal dated 18.8.2009, Annexure-10. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that while passing the earlier order dated 06.4.2010, Annexure-11, this Court noticed the submission of the petitioner made against the order dated 30.07.2009 in paragraph 4 of the order dated 6.4.2010. The appeal however has been disposed of under the impugned order dated 08.6.2010 without considering the submissions noted in paragraph 4 of the said order and such fact is very much obvious from perusal of the Appellate Order. 4. Counsel for the Bank, on the other hand submitted that from paragraph 6 the operative portion of the earlier order of this Court dated 6.4.2010, Annexure-11 it does not appear that this Court directed the Bank to consider the submission noted in paragraph 4, of the said order the Appellate Authority has rightly chosen not to consider those submissions. Learned counsel for the Bank desired four weeks’ time for filing counter affidavit placing on record documents to support the Appellate Order. Such submission is wholly bereft of the legal position settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In catena of 4 decisions, Hon’ble Supreme Court settled the legal position the quasi judicial order passed by Disciplinary/Appellate Authority should speak for itself and the findings recorded therein cannot be supported by filing counter affidavit placing on record the connected documents. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill Versus Chief Election Commissioner AIR 1978 SC 851. In appreciation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this court has chosen to refuse the prayer of the counsel for the Bank for adjournment to file counter affidavit. 5. Having perused the impugned Appellate Order dated 8.6.2010, Annexure-1, I am satisfied that the appellate authority of the Bank has not considered the submission raised on behalf of the petitioner in his two memorandum of appeal as also noted in paragraph 4 of my earlier order dated 06.4.2010, Annexure-11. Accordingly, the order dated 08.6.2010, Annexure-1, of the Appellate Authority is set aside with direction to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the matter in the light of the submissions noted by me in the earlier dated 06.4.2010,Annexure-11 as also the two memo of 5 Appeal. The appellate authority shall pass fresh order in the light of my direction within one month from the date of receipt of this order. M.I. HAQUE ( V. N. Sinha, J.)