IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2950 of 2004 RAMA NATH SINGH S/O LATE DHANUSHDHARI PRASAD SINGH R/O NEW CHANDMARI, P.S.- MOTIHARI, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN ………….Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR (PATNA) 2. CHAMPARAN KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK, MOTIHARI, EAST CHAMPARAN THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN 3. CHAIRMAN, CHAMPARAN KSHETRIA GRAMIN BANK, MOTIHARI, EAST CHAMPARAN 4. DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, CHAMPARAN KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK MOTIHARI, EAST CHAMPARAN 5. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, KSHETRIYA CHAMPARAN GRAMIN BANK HEAD OFFICE, MOTIHARI THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN 6. MANAGING DIRECTOR CHAMPARAN KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK, MOTIHARI ………Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : 1. Sri Devendra Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv. : 2. Smt. Punam Srivastava, Adv. : 3. Sri Pradeep Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the State/Bank : 1. GP-6 : 2. Sri Ajay Kumar Sinha, Adv. ----------- 10. 27.06.2011 Heard the parties. The petitioner has raised various grounds to assail the punishment awarded to him in terms of the order dated 21.2.2003 as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ petition. It appears that the Appellate Authority by his order dated 29.11.2003 (Annexure-9) considered the matter on merits and has modified the punishment, in effect awarding a consolidated punishment of permanent deduction of 9th lower stage from the time scale of pay with effect from 21.7.1997. The petitioner on facts of the case and in relation to the various charges has attempted to show that his action has throughout been bona fide and the penalty awarded was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. He has further made specific averments in paras 10 to 13 of the writ petition questioning the validity of the impugned order of the disciplinary authority on the ground of failure of natural justice and that he was not supplied the copies, nor provided all the documents on which the prosecution has relied upon, despite various prayers made in this behalf. According to him, list of the examined witnesses was not supplied, charges framed were never got in evidence and finding that the back ground submitted during enquiry and proved by the witnesses have not been exhibited. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank has filed a counter affidavit and has made his submissions at length showing that circumstantially the conduct of the petitioner has been suspect and the charges against him should be taken as proved, having been duly substantiated. This court will, in its writ jurisdiction, ordinarily examine only the legality or otherwise of the decision making process rather than whether or not a decision has been passed erroneously. It appears that the Appellate Authority has made an observation in the appellate order (Annexure- 9) that in course of the enquiry all relevant documents were allowed to be inspected and witnesses were also examined. This is seriously disputed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner who says that the copies of the relevant documents were neither supplied nor even any opportunity of inspection thereof was ever provided. As this matter is disputed on facts, this is best resolved by inspection of the records themselves. Let the matter be remanded to the disciplinary authority who will examine from the records whether or not the petitioner was granted due opportunity for inspection of the relevant documents complained of by the petitioner. Opportunity in this behalf shall be granted to the petitioner. In case it is found that an opportunity was duly provided for inspection, the impugned order at Annexure-8 and consequentially the appellate order (Annexure-9) will continue to operate. If on the other hand, it is found that no such opportunity was granted, then the disciplinary authority, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and after supplying copies of the documents as may reasonably be requested by him, will take a fresh decision in the matter. The learned disciplinary authority will take steps to dispose of the matter by a speaking order expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months hereof. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Fahad. ( Vikash Jain, J. )