IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.888 of 2009 1. BIHAR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK, BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, MUNGER-811 201, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, 2. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS-CUM-APPELLATE AUTHORITY BIHAR KESHTRIAYA GRAMIN BANK, BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK MUNGER-811 201, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, 3. THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,BIHAR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK, BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, MUNGER. 4. GENERAL MANAGER, BIHAR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK, BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, MUNGER-811 201. -APPELLANTS Versus RAJEEV RANJAN, S/O LATE BIJOY SHANKAR PRASAD, R.B.S.S.S. ROAD, MUNDICHAK, P.S.-ISHACHAK, TOWN & DISTRICT – BHAGALPUR. -RESPONDENT 3 10.08.2009 Heard the parties. The disciplinary proceeding against sole respondent had a somewhat chequered career. For an occurrence dated 18th March, 2007 wherein the respondent abused and even physically hurt the Chairman of the Bank, Dr. D.C. Singh the respondent was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding and on the basis of adverse enquiry report he was awarded punishment of compulsory retirement from service under the Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank. Aggrieved by the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority, the Chairman, Dr. D.C. Singh, the respondent, preferred an 2 appeal before the Appellate Authority, the Board of Directors of the Bank, the Board of Directors allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for a fresh enquiry and for the purpose of acting as Disciplinary Authority, it conferred authority on a Director. Subsequently, the Board of Directors reviewed its earlier order and acting under the Regulation 48 of the relevant Regulations the Board took up and disposed of appeal again on 20th March, 2009 and summarily rejected the same while upholding the penalty earlier imposed. This order was communicated to the respondent who challenged the same by filing writ petition to which that order was annexed as Annexure-5. The writ court found the subsequent order of the Board of Directors as without jurisdiction since the Board of Directors had already become functus officio after passing an order of remand requiring fresh enquiry. Before us the appellants have raised doctrine of necessity to canvass that the first order of the Board of Directors was erroneous because under the Regulations the Chairman was the competent Authority in respect of officers 3 and hence as a necessity only the Chairman could have performed the duties of the competent Authority / disciplinary Authority in respect of respondent. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent reliance was placed upon Regulation 48 to submit that while providing for appellate Authority, the Chairman has been equated with the Committee or Director and, in that view of the matter, the Board of Directors which has vast supervisory and over-riding powers under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, chose to designate a Director as competent Authority / Disciplinary Authority so that the respondent may not have any grievance on account of personal bias, or possibility of the same of the Chairman. He also placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Harendra Prasad Thakur & Ors. Vrs. Vaishali Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Ors., dated 9th February, 2007 whereby CWJC no. 11060 of 1997 was allowed and the Board of Directors were directed to appoint a Disciplinary Authority from one of the Directors. That judgment has been annexed as Annexure-R/5 to the counter affidavit filed in this appeal. In course of arguments both the parties accepted 4 that the then Chairman of the Bank is no longer in office and has been replaced by another person as Chairman of the Bank. As a well established principle of law, we can safely reiterate that as in the present case, if the subject matter of charge concerns the Disciplinary Authority who is said to have received abuses and even assault at the hands of the delinquent employee, then such Disciplinary Authority must withdraw from the proceedings on account of likelihood of bias. In the present case, the doctrine of necessity could easily be taken care of in view of vast powers vested in the Board of Directors by the Statute itself. It was in exercise of such statutory powers as well as power of appellate Authority under the Regulations that the then Board of Directors remanded the matter for fresh enquiry and designated a Director to act as the Competent Authority. In our view, there is no error of law or fact in the order by the writ court which may require our interference. However, on facts, there has been a subsequent development which was not brought to the notice of the writ court. Now, the post of Chairman is being occupied by 5 another person. In that view of the matter, in our opinion it is not at all necessary or even desirable to have a special Competent Authority / Disciplinary Authority. Hence, the appeal is disposed of with only a limited interference that although fresh enquiry shall be held, as directed earlier by the Board of Directors, but the Competent Authority shall be the present Chairman of the Bank itself. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Anjana Prakash, J.) AAhmad