IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.757 of 2008 DEVENDRA NATH SINHA, SON OF LATE PARAS NATH, RESIDENT OF SASTRI NAGAR, MUNGER, P.O-MUNGER, P.S. KASIMBAZAR, DISTRICT- MUNGER AT PRESENT POSTED AS OFFICER, BIHR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK AT HEAD OFFICE, MUNGER, DISTRICT-MUNGER. ------------------PETITIONER. Versus 1.BIHAR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN SRI DINESH CHANDRA SINGH, BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, MUNGER-811201. 2.THE BOARD OF DIRECTOS, BIHAR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN SRI DINESH CHANDRA SINGH, BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, MUNGER-811201. 3.SRI DINESH CHANDRA SINGH, CHAIRMAN, BIHAR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK, BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, MUNGER-811201. 4.SRI R.P. SAHA, GENERAL MANAGER (REPORTING OFFICER), BIHAR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK, BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, MUNGER-811201.---------OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Ganesh Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Nand Gopal Mishra, Advocate. For the Opposite parties: Dr. Sadanand Jha, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Advocate. 4 05-05-2010 This Court on 29-04-2010 had directed personal presence of the Chairman and General Manager of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank and accordingly Mr. S.P. Singh, Chairman and Mr. P.K. Pan, General Manager are present. It is submitted by Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, 2 learned Senior counsel along with Mr. Nand Gopal Mishra for the petitioner that the respondents are deliberately committed contempt of this Court, inasmuch as, they have awarded 4 marks and divided into by 5. It is urged by them that even if it is divided the employee would get .8 marks which will be equivalent to 1 after being rounded of. Dr. S.N. Jha with Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava appearing for the contemnors would contend that the order of assessment of 4 marks cannot be really found fault with and as far as second aspect is concerned, they said that they would propose before the Board to round of .8 marks to 1. Be it noted, L.P.A. No.815 of 2007 was disposed of holding as follows: “In the result, the appeal is allowed, impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. Further the aforesaid decision granting zero marks to the petitioner under Performance Appraisal Report is quashed. The respondent Bank is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of marks under Performance Appraisal Report as also to consider his case of promotion within three 3 months bearing in mind the observation aforesaid.” It is worth noting, the Bench are disposing of the appeal by referring to grading awarded in respect of various aspects and had also observed that the Performance Appraisal Report of the petitioner for the year 1995-96 is only required to be looked into. The management had awarded zero on the earlier occasion and after judgment had awarded 4. Grading out equivalent marks are segregated into five compartments, namely, Attendance and Punctuality, Job Knowledge, Initiative, Diligence and Integrity. 4 marks is awardable if the Officer is excellent and 2 marks are awarded for adequate and if barely adequate he gets 1 mark. The management has awarded 2 marks on the Attendance and Punctuality and 2 marks for Job Knowledge and for other three heads they have awarded zero marks. The submission of Dr. Jha and Mr. Shrivastava is that the Officer lacks diligence and therefore he has been given zero marks. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel submitted that the Division Bench has dealt with the same and to fortify his 4 submission he has drawn our attention to two paragraphs which are reproduced hereinbelow:- “Dr. Jha all the times emphasizes that the petitioner is dishonest and had been punished on that allegation and hence do not deserve to be promoted to MMG Scale II as he has lost the confidence of the Bank. Petitioner has not been awarded the punishment of withholding of promotion for all times to come and hence in my opinion he cannot be denied promotion only on the ground that he was visited with the penalty. At the same time I make it clear that after reconsideration of the case of the petitioner for grant of marks under Performance Appraisal Report the case of the petitioner for promotion shall be considered bearing in mind the promotion policy. It is made clear that while considering the case of promotion of the petitioner the Bank shall be at liberty to consider all relevant material.” At this juncture, we made query from Mr. Jha whether Board should also consider where an Officer is granted 2 marks for Attendance and Punctuality and 2 marks for Job Knowledge should be given zero marks on 5 the head „Initiative and Diligence‟, for awarding of marks has to be based on rationality. As learned counsel for the Bank has agreed that the matter shall be placed before the Board on both the counts, namely, (i) rational awarding of marks on all the heads and (ii) rounding off 0.8 to 1, we do not intend to keep this contempt proceeding pending and direct, let the Board decide the matter within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the order passed today. We hope and trust that the Bank shall take a reasonable and objective view keeping in view the judgment delivered in L.P.A. No.815 of 2007 so that the petitioner is not compelled to move this Court again. Needless to say, the Bank has agreed that if the marks are rationalized, the case shall be considered for promotion as per direction given in the Letters Patent Appeal. The proceeding for contempt is accordingly dropped for the present. (Dipak Misra, C.J.) Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)