IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12918 of 2009 Bhup Narayan Jha, Son of Late Rajdeo Jha, resident of village-Jarail, P.S.-Arer, District-Madhubani. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The Chairman-Cum-Disciplinary Authority, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Sharma Complex, Kalambag Chowk, Muzaffarpur, Bihar. 2. The Area Officer through its Controlling Officer, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Parishad Bazar, Madhubani, District-Madhubani. 3. Anjani Kumar Mishra, Father name not known to the petitioner, Branch Manager, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Laukaha, P.O. & P.S.-Laukaha, District-Madhubani, Bihar. 4. Arun Kumar Choudhary, Enquiry Officer, Controlling Office, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Parishad Bazar, Madhubani, District-Madhubani. 5. S.P.N. Pandey, Father name not known to the Petitioner, Controlling Office, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Parishad Bazar, Madhubani, District- Madhubani. -Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Das, Adv. For the Bank : Mr. Prabhakar Jha, Adv. ----------- 02 06.10.2009 The petitioner appears to be aggrieved by the departmental proceedings initiated by the Uttar Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank (initially Madhubani Kshetriya Gramin Bank). It has been urged that as against initiation of the proceedings petitioner had preferred an appeal and consequently the Inquiring Officer had to stay proceeding till disposal of appeal that was not done. He stated that he had made several applications for being given documents etc. which were not being given. Inquiry Officer was then changed, who have since submitted enquiry report. In my view, firstly, as the Appellate Authority had not stayed any departmental proceeding. It cannot be contended that the proceedings ought not to proceed merely because the appeal was preferred. It is well established that mere preferment of appeal does not - 2 - amount to stay of the order appealed against. So far as procedural impropriety is concerned, the petitioner has his remedy when he is called upon to show cause in respect of enquiry report which has been submitted. These are primarily questions of fact which the petitioner can raise at that stage and which the authorities would oblige to consider. In that view of the matter, the challenge to the departmental proceedings appears to this Court to be pre-matured. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with an observation that the petitioner may raise his grievances before authority at the appropriate stage which authority would consider before concluding the departmental proceedings. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)