CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.3232 OF 1996 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitutiion of India SRI SACHIDANAND PRASAD, SON OF LATE RAM BAHADUR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF L.I.C.COLONY, JAGDISHPURI MITHANPURA, P.O. MITHANPURA, P.S. RAMNA, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR ----------(Petitioner) Versus 1. THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS ZONAL OFFICE, CLUB ROAD, IN FRONT OF JUBA SAHNI PARK, MUZAFFARPUR. 2. SRI GHANSHYAM DAS, REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, SPEAKER CHOWK, MUZAFFARPUR. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE CHANDRAMUKHI NARIMAN POINT, BOMBAY. 4. SRI DHIRENDRA KUMAR DHIR, CHIEF MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, ENQUIRY OFFICER, MOTIHARI -----------(Respondents) ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Ram Balak Mahto, Sr.Adv., Janardan Singh, advocate. For the Bank : M/s. Ajay Kr. Sinha, Harish Kumar, advocates. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA V.N. Sinha, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Central Bank of India(hereinafter referred to as the Bank). 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served as Branch Manager, Sahdei Bujurg Branch of the Bank. He was proceeded against pursuant to chargesheet dated 7.7.1989, Annexure-3. Perusal of the chargesheet indicate that he is alleged to have sanctioned loan without creating equitable mortgage, without and beyond the recommendation of the District Industries - 2 - Centre, sanctioned fishery loan without the recommendation of the Fish Farmer Development Agency as also sanctioned loan in the name of fictitious persons and misappropriated the same. In the light of the report of the Enquiry Officer petitioner was dismissed from the service of the Bank under order dated 4.9.1996, Annexure-12. Against the dismissal order he preferred appeal, which was also dismissed under order dated 23.7.1997, Annexure-15. Petitioner has challenged the two orders in the writ petition on the ground that on the same allegation First Information Report No.RC.32(A)/89 was also registered against him on 29.9.1989 in which the CBI after investigation submitted charge sheet dated 25.1.1990, Annexure-5 but till date trial is continued in the court of CBI Judge, Patna. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as on the same allegation First Information Report and charge sheet was filed by the CBI and the trial is still pending the result of the trial should govern the result of the departmental proceeding initiated against him as subject matter of the dismissal order dated 4.9.1996, Annexure-12 and the First Information Report/chargesheet dated 25.1.1990 is the same i.e. irregularities committed in advancing loan to the - 3 - borrowers. 4. Having perused the enquiry report dated 17.6.1991, Annexure-1 as also the contents of dismissal/appellate order dated 4.9.1996/23.7.1997, Annexures-12 and 15, I am satisfied that petitioner has been proceeded against in the departmental proceeding as also in the criminal case i.e. RC.32(A)/89 dated 29.9.1989 and the chargesheet dated 25.1.1990, Annexure-5 on the same material, as such, the result in the criminal case should govern the punishment in the departmental proceeding. In the event, petitioner is acquitted in the criminal case i.e. RC.32(A)/89 dated 29.9.1989, the authorities of the Bank should modify the punishment imposed on the petitioner in the departmental proceeding from dismissal to compulsory retirement. 5. With the observation aforesaid, the writ application is disposed of. Patna High Court, Patna Dated 26th August, 2010 NAFR/Rajesh (V.N. Sinha, J.)