IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.47 of 2010 CHANDRABHUSHAN KUMAR, SON OF SRI JAGAT NARAIN SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- PIRMUHANI (NEAR WATER TOWER) POLICE STATION- GANDHI MAIDAN, DISTRICT/TOWN- PATNA. … PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, THROUGH THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, WEST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA. 2. SRI R.VANKTACHALAM, SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, WEST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA. 3. SRI ALOK KUMAR CHOUDHARY, SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, HUMAN RESOURCES, STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE- WEST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA. 4. SRI SURESH AGRAWAL, SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGION- V, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, J.C. ROAD, PATNA. 5. SRI GOKLESH MAHESHWARYY, SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGION-I, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, J.C. ROAD, PATNA. 6. SRI SHYAM PRASAD SINGH, SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, ADMINISTRATION, STATE BANK OF INDIA, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, J.C. ROAD, PATNA. …….OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 4. 08.3.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). 2. This contempt application has been filed alleging violation of the orders of this Court dated 29.10.2009 passed in CWJC No. 9814 of 2009, Annexure- 1, by the Bank. For ready reference the operative portion of the order dated 29.10.2009 is extracted below. “Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that at this stage, I grant one more opportunity to 2 the competent authority of the State Bank of India to consider the submission raised in paragraph-27 of the writ application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and while doing so the Bank should also consider the desirability of bringing back the petitioner to Patna. Appropriate orders in the light of this order be passed by the competent authority of the Bank as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order”. 3. Aforesaid order of this Court was challenged by the Bank by filing LPA No. 1622 of 2009 but the Division Bench under order dated 24.12.2009, Annexure-15 refused to interfere with the said order dated 29.10.2009 as this Court had not issued any command for the posting of the petitioner. 4. From perusal of the aforesaid order dated 29.10.2009, 24.12.2009 it would appear that this Court directed the Bank to consider the submission raised in paragraph-27 of the writ application which in effect is the statement of the authorities of the Bank itself recorded in paragraph-13 of the earlier counter affidavit of the Bank 3 filed in CWJC No. 618 of 2008, Annexure-7 to the contempt application. For ready reference aforesaid paragraph-13 is also quoted hereinbelow: “That the afore said list of 115 employees prepared designation wise consisting 57 numbers of Sr. Assistants, 34 number of Spl. Assistants & 24 number of Assistants are still existing and no alteration has been made by the Bank in the list so far. This list has been acted upon by the Bank strictly and the employee named therein by designation wise are being relieved gradually and it is under way. Many of the employees of the said lists have filed their representation for stay of their transfer on some ground or another but their representation are not being entertained by the Bank and they are being directed to join their new posting. Incidentally, the petitioner’s name is in the list of 35 persons who has been relieved and remaining other are also in process of being relieved”. 5. It appears by passing order dated 19.1.2010 4 Annexure-A to the show-cause filed in this matter the authorities of the Bank have given a go by to their own statement made before this Court through counter affidavit which was relied upon by this Court for passing the order dated 29.10.2009. The authorities of the Bank appear to have violated their own oath made before this Court by way of counter affidavit of Sri Birendra Prasad Singh, Assistant General Manager (H.R.), whereunder the Bank had informed the High Court that out of the list of 115 employees 57, 34, 24 are Sr. Assistant, Spl. Assistant, Assistant respectively and out of the 115 transferred employees 35 employees have already been relieved and the remaining others are also in the process of being relieved. By passing the order dated 19.1.2010 the transfer list of the 115 employees who were to be relieved in the light of the statement made in paragraph-13 of the counter affidavit in CWJC No. 618 of 2008 has been changed and 54 employees were not relieved contrary to the statement made before the High Court in the said counter affidavit. 6. It is submitted by the counsel for the Bank that after filing of the counter affidavit in CWJC No. 618 of 2008 the situation changed many fresh appointments were made for the Rural Branches and the transfer list of the Assistant(s) had to be readjusted. 7. Counsel for the petitioner, however, pointed out that subsequent appointment of the Assistant(s) for the 5 Rural Branches could not have affected the transfer order of the Senior and Special Assistant(s) which was made earlier to the new appointments violating the statement made before the High Court on affidavit as affidavit is solemn promise made before this Court, failure to observe the oath is punishable offence under the Penal Code. He further submitted that the subsequent order dated 19.01.2010 was passed only to accommodate the favorite(s) of the authorities as according to the petitioner the place of transfer of the following employees namely Ram Bibhishan Sah, Prabhat Kumar, Manoj Kumar, Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Sheo Mangal Singh, Smt. Yugal Kishori, Smt. Sabnam, A.K. Bajpayee, Smt. Dipti Kumari and Smt. Seema Sinha was changed only to accommodate them. 8. Counsel for the Bank has not disputed the aforesaid statement he only submits that on account of the subsequent appointment made for the Rural Branches the earlier transfer order about which statement was made in paragraph-13 of the counter affidavit was changed. Learned counsel candidly submitted that the Bank should have sought permission from this Court before passing the order dated 19.01.2010 contrary to their statement made in paragraph-13 of the counter affidavit. 9. Affidavit filed before this Court is solemn promise made by the authorities before this Court. Relying on the statement made in the affidavit orders are passed by 6 this Court. After passing of the orders of the High Court if the statement made in the affidavit is violated then such violation cannot be condoned on the ground of subsequent change in circumstances of persons having been appointed in the service of the Bank, if that was so the authorities of the Bank should have invited the attention of the High Court to such subsequent happening. Without such information to the High Court the Assistant General Manager Administration proceeded to pass order dated 19.01.2010 which is contrary to the oath taken by another Assistant General Manager in connection with CWJC No. 618 of 2008. 10. In the circumstances, I have no option but to direct the General Manager of the Bank not only to take disciplinary proceeding against the Officer(s) concerned who passed the order dated 19.01.2010 as also granted approval for its passing but also launch prosecution against them for offence of violating the oath taken before the High Court and submit a report to this Court within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the General Manager of the Bank. 11. The contempt application, however, stands disposed of. Ibrar/- ( V.N. Sinha, J.)