IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16755 of 2011 ============================================= 1. Kamlesh Narayan Shukla S/O Jyoti Chandra Shukla Resident Of Village- Bairia, P.O.-D.K. Shikarpur, P.S.-Shikarpur, District-West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Board Of Directors, North Bihar Gramin Bank, Head Office, Muzaffarpur Through Its Chairman (Adhayakch). 2. The Chairman (Adhayakch), Board Of Directors, North Bihar Gramin Bank, Head Office, Muzaffarpur. .... .... Respondent/s ============================================= Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prabhakar Jha ============================================= 3 25-10-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Bank. Petitioner is serving the North Bihar Gramin Bank (for short “ the Bank”) earlier called Champaran Kshetriya Gramin Bank. While in service, two First Information Reports were lodged against him. Bank instituted a departmental proceeding against him. On conclusion of the aforesaid proceeding, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 17.7.2001 (Annexure-1) whereby he was inflicted with the punishment of stoppage of 13 increments permanently. Aggrieved thereby, he filed appeal which was considered and disposed of by order dated 18.2.2002/22.3.2002 (Annexure-2) whereby, while dismissing the appeal, the punishment was modified from withholding of 13 increments to 2 stoppage of 09 increments on permanent basis. It is the petitioner’s case that in one of the F.I.Rs, the Investigating Agency, on conclusion of investigation, submitted final form which was accepted by the Court on 21.5.2001 (Annexure-3). In the another case, the petitioner was tried and acquitted of the charges by the Court under judgment dated 13.12.2007 passed in G.R. No. 2559 of 1999 (enclosed as Annexure-4). Learned counsel submits that since he was acquitted in one of the criminal cases by the Court of competent jurisdiction in the year 2007, he filed a review petition before the authority of the Bank on 15.7.2009 (Annexure-5). The grievance of the petitioner is that the said review petition has not till date been considered and disposed of. Mr. Jha learned counsel for the Bank, on the other hand, contends that the relevant regulation/Rule of the Bank does not admit of any review jurisdiction on the appellate authority. If the authority is not vested with the power of review of its order, the petitioner could not make a grievance that his application seeking review of the order has remained pending with the Bank and the said respondent be directed to pass order thereon. It is next contended that on bare perusal of the materials on record, it would appear that the day on which the Disciplinary Authority passed the 3 impugned order (Annexure-1), one of the criminal proceeding has already ended in submission and acceptance of final report wherein petitioner was not sent up for trial. It is next contended that the appellate order was passed in the year 2002. Petitioner did not raise any grievance thereagainst. Subsequently, by judgment dated 13.12.2007, he was acquitted in one of the criminal cases. Petitioner waited for another 02 years and filed the aforesaid review application which is not permissible under the relevant regulation/Rule of the Bank. After hearing the rival submissions and on going through the materials on record, this Court is not satisfied that a case for invocation of extraordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction has been made out to issue writ directing the respondent Bank to dispose of the application (Annexure-5) filed by the petitioner for review. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show from the relevant regulation/Rule that any such power/jurisdiction rests with the authority where such application was filed. The application is dismissed. PANKAJ KUMAR/- (Kishore K. Mandal, J)