IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15965 of 2007 RANENDRA KUMAR SINGH, son of late Sheopujan Singh resident of Sonepur, P.S. Sonepur , District-Saran at Chapra. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. Budha Marg, Patna through its Chairman. 2. The Chairman, Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. Budha Marg, Patna. 3. The Managing Director, Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. Budha Marg, Patna 4. The Secretary, Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. Budha Marg, Patna 5. Chief Vigilance Officer, Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. Budha Marg, Patna 6. The Loan Officer, Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. Budha Marg, Patna ----------- 13 26.04.2010 Heard Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Prasad Choudhary for the respondent Co- operative Bank. The petitioner questions the validity of the proceedings under which a penalty of recovery of Rs. 15,250.25 together with interest thereon was issued vide memo No. 877 dated 27.3.2004(Annexure-1). The petitioner also questions the show cause notice contained in memo No. 19012 dated 22.3.1999 whereby some more allegations of financial irregularity has been set out against the petitioner, who was directed to submit his - 2 - explanation. The charges set out hereinabove resulted in an order as contained in Annexure-4 directing recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,05,692.25 said to be loss suffered by the Bank by reason of the financial irregularities committed by the petitioner who was posted as the Branch Manager at the relevant time. Learned counsel for the petitioner questions the orders impugned on a short point of non compliance of principles of natural justice. He submits that the notices were not served upon him and that the order bearing memo No. 1674 dated 19.6.2004 placed at Annexure-4 to the writ petition has been passed without ensuring compliance of the settled principles of natural justice in matters entailing financial implications and/or resulting in civil consequences and thus is not sustainable in law. Annexure-4 is a composite order of recovery, in light of the order dated 27.3.2004 (Annexure-1) as also the penalty imposed by the order bearing memo No. 966 dated 28.9.2001 (Annexure-3). Learned counsel with reference to a - 3 - Bench decision of this Court placed at Annexure-5 of the writ petition passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8891 of 1998 (Sidheshwar Prasad Singh versus Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank) dated 5.11.1999 submits that the case of the present petitioner is squarely covered by the order passed in the said case. He submits that this Court after considering the issue of recovery in the backdrop of the violations of the principle of natural justice, was pleased to set aside the impugned orders with liberty to the appropriate authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against the order of proposed penalty. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on remand of the matter, the said writ petitioner, Sidheshwar Prasad Singh was exonerated by the Bank under order bearing memo No. 251 dated 23.6.2003 (Annexure-6). Mr. Rajesh Prasad Choudhary, with reference to the enclosures to the counter affidavit submits that despite repeated reminders and notices issued to the petitioner for setting out his explanation against the - 4 - allegations but he failed to respond to the same and which has ultimately culminated into the order of penalty appended at Annexure-4 to the writ petition and which requires no interference. Having regard to the rival contentions advanced on behalf of the parties and in the backdrop of the judicial pronouncement present at Annexure-5 of the writ petition, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be served by remitting the matter for fresh consideration by the respondent Managing Director of the Bank after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, to submit his explanation to the charges. Taking into consideration the accompanying circumstances, the impugned order of penalty as contained in Annexure-4 is set aside. As the petitioner is fully aware of the charges set out against him, he shall file his detailed explanation before the respondent No.3, the Managing Director of the Bank within a period of eight weeks from today. Upon submission of the explanation, the respondent No.3, Managing Director shall fix a date of - 5 - hearing in the presence of the petitioner and/or after advance service of notice of hearing on the petitioner. On the date so fixed for hearing, the Managing director shall consider the explanation advanced on behalf of the petitioner after giving him an opportunity of personal hearing and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks thereafter. If on the date fixed, the petitioner absents himself without reasonable explanation to the satisfaction of the Managing Director, he shall proceed with the matter and decide the same ex-parte. The refund of the amount recovered by the Bank shall be governed by the final outcome of the proceedings. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction aforesaid. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)