IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 12785 of 2004 Baikuntha Bihari Mishra, son of late Badri Narayan Mishra, resident of Village – Sonar, Police Station – Riga, Dist – Sitamarhi -Petitioner Versus 1. 1 The Champaran Kshetriya Gramin Bank through its Chairman, Head Office – Motihari, Red Cross Building, Hospital Road, Motihari, District – East Champaran 2. The Board of Directors, Champaran Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Head Office – Motihari, Red Cross Building, Hospital Road, Motihari, District – East Champaran 3. Shri Prakash Narain Awasthi, Chairman –cum- Disciplinary Authority, Champaran Gramin Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Head Office – Motihari, Red Cross Building, Hospital Road, Motihari, District – East Champaran 4. Shri Prabhunath Singh, Area Manager – cum- Inquiry Officer, Champaran Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Bettiah Branch, Bettiah, District – West Champaran -Respondents ----------- 4 06.08.2009 With consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself as pleadings are complete and this matter is pending before this court since 2004. The petitioner was in the Management Cadre of Champaran Kshetriya Gramin Bank sponsored by the Central Bank of India which had become a part of Uttar Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank and now it has become Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank. It appears from the pleadings on records there was serious differences between the petitioner and Chairman of the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank. Be that as it may, for certain derelictions, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner objected to the appointment of the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority as they were parties to various disputes as between the petitioner and them. Notwithstanding that, the proceedings culminated - 2 - in the extreme punishment order of dismissal. Petitioner filed appeal to the Board of Directors of the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank. The appellate Board considered the matter. The appellate Board, instead of considering the merits of the appeal, considered that from the records it was clear that the petitioner tried to assassinate the character of the Chairman. However, the Board took a lenient view of the matter and set aside the order of punishment of dismissal. The punishment of dismissal was reduced to the initial basic stage of pay in time scale. This was subject to the petitioner withdrawing all cases against the Management/Chairman. This order was passed on 01.09.2004. This order further states that petitioner would be entitled to get his salary from the date of reporting to his duty as per the administrative order of the Management. Petitioner, being aggrieved by the said appellate order, filed this writ petition on 07.10.2004. This writ petition was pending and petitioner was out of job and could only rejoin if he withdrew the case against the Management/Chairman as per order dated 01.09.2004. He made an application to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari for withdrawal of the case being Motihari Town Police Station Case No 290 of 2003. By order dated 11.10.2006, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari refused to permit the withdrawal of the case on the ground that it being a police case, it could only be withdrawn at the instance of the Public Prosecutor and no application having been filed by the Public Prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor, petitioner’s application for withdrawal could not be entertained. Petitioner then informed the Chairman that he had done - 3 - what he could do to withdraw the case. He should be permitted to join. The Chairman responded by his letter dated 04.04.2007 (Annexure-32). He did not permit the joining of the petitioner on 2 grounds. Firstly, he had not withdrawn a criminal case as he had filed an application in wrong form. Secondly, he had not withdrawn this writ petition as was directed by the appellate authority. Thus, petitioner having not complied with the directions of the appellate authority which directions conditioned the joining, petitioner could not be permitted to join. Mr R N Mukhopadhya, learned counsel appearing in support of the writ petition submits that this order not permitting the petitioner to join is wholly perverse. Mr Ajay Sinha, on the other hand, appearing for the Bank submits that the petitioner did not abide by the appellate order and, thus, his joining was rightly not accepted. Having considered the matter, in my view, the submission of Mr Mukhopadhya is correct and has to be accepted. So far as withdrawal of writ petition is concerned, that is not even contemplated in the appellate order. The reason is because the appellate order is dated 01.09.2004 and was communicated alongwith the order of the Chairman dated 25.09.2004 whereas the present writ application was filed on 07.10.2004. The writ petition was not even filed when the appellate order was passed. Thus, the appellate order could not conceive the present case at all. There is yet another reason why the appellate order could not be considering the writ petition. If a punishment is conditioned on withdrawal of the writ petition, that could amount to direct interference in course of justice preventing a citizen from - 4 - exercising his constitutional rights of seeking judicial remedy. That would be direct interference in Court proceedings and would amount to contempt. No party can be forced and/or coerced to withdraw a writ petition pending in the High Court. So far as the second ground is concerned, it is equally misconceived. All petitioner could do was to make an application for withdrawal of the case lodged by him and pursue the same with all benefits. He made an application. He pressed the same but the Chief Judicial Magistrate took a technical view of the matter and refused the application. Petitioner, thus, did all that was required of him and all that was possible of him to be done. Obviously, it could not be expected that he would dictate to the Chief Judicial Magistrate as to what judicial order he has to pass. That cannot be held against the petitioner. Thus seen, the order of the Chairman of the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank dated 04.04.2007 cannot be sustained. It is, thus, to be held that petitioner, having complied with the appellate order, had a right to join the organization but was wrongly prevented. The consequence is that petitioner would be entitled to all his remunerations from 07.02.2007 giving that the petitioner has duly joined till his superannuation. The respondents to ensure that necessary payments in that regard in pursuance of the order of this Court would be made to the petitioner within 2 months of the petitioner’s filing a copy of this order before the Chairman of the Bank. Let it be recorded that this Court has neither approved nor - 5 - disapproved the factual findings of either the original order or the appellate order in these proceedings. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)