IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.662 of 2010 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER,STATE BANK OF INDIA 2. The Assistant General Manager, Region II (Disciplinary Authority), State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Beatson Road, Khanjjarpur Office, PO No.45, Bhagalpur 3. The Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) State Bank of India, Disciplinary Proceeding Section, Zonal Office, Bhagalpur 4. The Chief Manager –cum-Enquiry Officer, State Bank of India, Pakur 5. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Barharwa Branch, District Sahebganj 6. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Pakur Branch, Pakur - All the aforesaid being the officers of the State Bank of India in their official capacity are being represented through Alok Kumar Choudhary, S/o Late Kedar Nath Choudhary, resident of Sridev Apartment, Near Alpana Apartment, Patliputra Colony, Patna being the Assistant General Manager (HR), Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna under Regulation 77 read with Regulation 76 of the State Bank of India General Regulation 1955 ............ Appellants/Respondents Versus MANOJ KUMAR RAJAK S/o Ganesh Rajak, Resident of Back of Museum, Vidyapati Colony, PS Kotwali, Distt. Patna.......... Petitioner/Respondent ----------- 02- 4/4/2011 Heard Mr. Gopal Prasad Gupta, learned Assistant Counsel to Mr. S D Sanjay for the appellant State Bank of India. No one appears on behalf of the respondent. 2. The instant letters patent appeal has been filed against the order dated 4.3.2010 of a learned single Judge in CWJC No.1132 of 2010, whereby order dated 4.3.2009 passed by the Bank has been set aside with the direction to the appellant to consider the request of the writ petitioner in 2 the light of the findings recorded by the appellate court in paragraph-10 of the judgment dated 10.2.2008. The respondent (writ petitioner) had moved in writ petition for setting aside the order dated 4.3.2009, whereunder his request letter to reinstate him in the service of the Bank after recalling the earlier orders dated 21.4.2004 and 7.6.2005, was rejected by the Bank. The petitioner had sought his relief on the ground that he has been acquitted in the criminal case. After perusing the material on record, the learned single Judge directed the Bank to reconsider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the findings recorded by the appellate court by its judgment dated 10.2.2008. 3. We do not find fault in the order of the learned single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) ( S P Singh ) mrl