IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18896 of 2010 MANORANJAN PRASAD, S/O LATE PARMANAND PRASAD, RESIDENT OF RAJEEV NAGAR, P.S. RAJEEV NAGAR, DISTRICT- PATNA. … PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA THROUGH DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, PATNA. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE PATNA, MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, B-BLOCK 2ND FLOOR, PATNA, DISTRICT- PATNA. 3. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER-CUM-DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE, B-BLOCK MAURYA COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR PATNA DISTRICT- PATNA. 4. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA SAHARSA, KOSHI CHOWK, SAHARSA, DISTRICT- SAHARSA. 5. THE SENIOR MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA RUKUNPURA BRANCH, RUKUNPURA, DISTRICT- PATNA. 6. SRI S.K. TETARBE, SENIOR MANAGER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA RAJENDRA NAGAR BRANCH-CUM-ENQUIRY, OFFICER. … RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 23.11.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Bank’). 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served as Manager in the Rukunpura Branch of the Bank and he retired from the service of the Bank with effect from 31.8.2010. He is aggrieved by the service of the memo of charge dated 14.8.2010. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is being proceeded against for advancing fictitious loan to Budhan Rai on the basis of documents not verified by him, later the documents were found forged. 3. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that aforesaid allegation is absolutely false as the precautions which were expected from the Branch Manager before effecting the advance, petitioner has taken before advancing loan to said 2 Budhan Rai. In this connection he has referred to the order dated 29.10.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17928 of 2010, Annexure-6 wherefrom it appears that Budhan Rai approached this Court with a request to permit him to deposit a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the loan advanced by the Bank. With reference to the aforesaid order dated 29.10.2010 it is submitted that Budhan Rai is not a fictitious person and the documents which he had furnished in support of his loan, are also not forged documents. Aforesaid aspect of the matter cannot be investigated in these proceedings. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to appear before the Inquiry Officer and to request the enquiry offier to issue notice to Budhan Rai asking him to appear in the departmental proceeding. Petitioner having retired, the Inquiry Officer is directed to conclude the inquiry proceedings at an early date preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Before parting with this order, this Court would like to observe that petitioner should also take all steps for ensuring appearance of Budhan Rai before the Inquiry Officer. 5. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Ibrar/- ( V.N. Sinha, J.)