IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12017 of 2011 Ravindra Nath Son of Late Krishna Deo Pandit, resident of Saket Vihar, Barmashia, Police Station-Deoghar, Dist-Deoghar (Jharkhand) Presently posted as Branch Manager, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Sahar Kola Branch, P.S. Basantpur, Dist.Siwan. ----Petitioner. Versus 1. The Chairman,Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur. 2. The General Manager, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Regional Manager, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Saran at Chapra. ---Respondents. ----------- 02 27.07.2011 Heard Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhakar Jha, learned counsel for the respondent Bank. Petitioner while serving the Bank as Officer Scale-II has been departmentally proceeded for his acts of commissions and omissions. He has been served with a memorandum dated 03.05.2011 as contained in (Annexure-13) along with the charge sheet which is part of Annexure-13. Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner made diverse submissions before this Court in order to demonstrate that the charges framed against the petitioner are not sustainable in view of different orders passed by the respondent Bank. It is also contended that as per the memorandum (Annexure-13) his acts of commission and omission have been treated as misconduct within the meaning of Regulation no. 18 and 20 of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations 2010 ( for short ‘Regulation 2010’). It has been contended that the action taken by the petitioner in disbursing the loan pertained to the period prior to coming into force of the 2010 Regulation. 2 Learned counsel for the respondent Bank, on the other hand, submits that this Court, at this stage, may not go into the correctness or otherwise of the charges as the petitioner shall have opportunity to place those facts before the enquiry officer which shall be considered in accordance with law. This Court, on a consideration of the materials on record and the submissions of the parties, is in agreement with the stand of learned counsel for the respondent Bank. At this stage, this Court would refrain from pronouncing its view on the correctness or otherwise of the charge(s) for which petitioner has been proceeded against. However, this Court would grant liberty to the petitioner to raise all the issues relating to non application of the charge as also the Regulation under which he has been proceeded against. With the liberty aforesaid, the application is disposed of. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )