IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12294 of 2000 RADHA KANT SINGH, SON OF SHRI RAM SAKAL SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GOKHULA, P.S. MOTIPUR, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. Versus 1. BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED, PATNA, BUDHMARG, PATNA THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR. 2. ADMINISTRATOR, BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED, PATNA, BUDHMARG, PATNA. 3. DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR(ADMINISTRATION), BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED, PATNA, BUDHMARG, PATNA. 4. ENQUIRY OFFICER-CUM-REGIONAL MANAGER, BIHAR STATE CO- OPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED, PATNA, BUDHMARG, DARBHANGA. ----------- 04. 29.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited(hereinafter referred to as the Bank). 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served as Incharge Branch Manager of Sheohar Branch of the Bank. He is aggrieved by the office order dated 15.9.2000, Annexure-9, whereunder he has been dismissed from the service of the Bank in the light of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the report dated 25.8.1994, Annexure-5, perusal whereof indicates that petitioner has been held guilty of only one charge levelled against him in the supplementary charge sheet. So far the other charges are concerned, petitioner has not been found guilty by the Enquiry Officer. The disciplinary authority having considered the charge sheet under letter dated 26.6.2000, Annexure-6 called upon the petitioner to submit second show cause reply by 15.7.2000, failing which ex parte order shall be passed. Having received letter dated 26.6.2000 petitioner under letter dated - 2 - 12.7.2000, Annexure-7 requested the disciplinary authority to grant him time until 31.7.2000 to file second show cause reply as he was engaged in recovery of the bad loans given by the Bank by taking steps for arrest of the defaulter loanees. Under letter dated 22.8.2000, Annexure-8 petitioner again requested for time until 30.8.2000 i.e. the closure of the financial year for submitting his second show cause reply. The Enquiry Officer did not accede to the aforesaid request and proceeded to pass the impugned dismissal order dated 15.9.2000, Anneuxre-9 without considering the second show cause reply of the petitioner. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner was engaged in recovery of the loan amount from the defaulter loanees and had requested the disciplinary authority to grant further time until closure of the account on 30.8.2000, the disciplinary authority should have granted him the time prayed for and ought not to have passed ex parte dismissal order and as the order is ex parte the same may be set aside with direction to the petitioner to file second show cause reply, which should be considered by the disciplinary authority. 4. Counsel for the Bank has opposed the prayer. He states that the enquiry report is dated 25.8.1994, Annexure-5, whereafter the second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 26.9.1994, 15.7.1996, and 28.12.1999 but petitioner did not avail such opportunity to file the second show cause reply. The disciplinary authority having noticed the aforesaid default under letter dated - 3 - 26.6.2000, Annexure-6 gave yet another indulgence to the petitioner to file his reply by 15.7.2000 but petitioner instead of availing the indulgence claimed that he was engaged in recovery of the loan amount from the defaulter loanees and failed to even comply his own undertaking given under letter dated 12.7.2000 and submitted letter dated 22.8.2000 requesting the disciplinary authority to grant further time until 30.8.2000, such laches on the part of the proceedee should not be appreciated by this Court and the writ application be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder submitted that letter dated 26.9.1994, 15.7.1996 and 28.12.1999 was perhaps not received by the petitioner. Had he received those letters he may have taken time or filed his reply earlier. Having received letter dated 26.6.2000, Annexure-6 petitioner acted promptly and informed the disciplinary authority that he is engaged in recovery of the bad loans granted by the Bank and he may be accommodated until closure of the accounts by 30.8.2000 within one week thereafter he shall positively file his show cause reply. 6. Counsel for the Bank has not filed any counter affidavit, as such, it is not known whether letter dated 26.9.1994, 15.7.1996 and 28.12.1999 was served on the petitioner. One thing, however is evident that petitioner having received letter dated 26.6.2000, Annexure-6 did inform the disciplinary authority that he is engaged in recovery of the bad loans and he may be allowed time one week after closer of accounts on 30.8.2000 to file his second show cause reply. The disciplinary authority having received letter of the petitioner - 4 - dated 12.7.2000 and 22.8.2000, in my opinion should have granted last indulgence to the petitioner to submit his second show cause reply within one week of the closer of accounts on 30.8.2000 so that petitioner could not have made any complaint that he was not granted due indulgence at the time when he was engaged in recovery of the bad loans granted by the Bank. 7. In appreciation of the stand taken by the counsel for the petitioner in the light of the contents of letter dated 12.7.2000 and 22.8.2000, I set aside the ex parte dismissal order dated 15.9.2000, Annexure-9 directing the petitioner to furnish his second show cause reply before the disciplinary authority within two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, requisition wherefor should be filed by the petitioner by tomorrow. The second show cause reply be considered by the disciplinary authority in accordance with law as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of its receipt. Arrears of salary of the petitioner from the date of dismissal till the date of superannuation of the petitioner shall, however be subject to the result of the final order passed by the disciplinary authority as during the pendency of this application petitioner attained the age of superannuation. 8. With the observation and direction aforesaid, the writ application is disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)