IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1252 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7510 of 2011 ====================================================== Lakshmeshwar Prasad Roy @ Rai, S/o Sri Bhagat Narayan Roy, R/o Vill. & P.O.- Dehuli, Via- Chandanpatti, P.S.- Sakara, Distt.- Muzaffarpur, Bihar. ....Petitioner .... Appellant Versus 1. Uttar Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Head Office, Lalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur, Bihar though its Chairman. 2. The Chairman, Uttar Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Head Office, Kalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur, Bihar. 3. Branch Manager, Uttar Bihar Ksheriya Gramin Bank, Laxmanpur Barbatta Branch, Distt.- Vaishali. .... Respondents .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 19-09-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 9th August 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No.7510 of 2011, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The appellant is an employee of the respondent Uttar Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank. In view of criminal case lodged against the appellant and his arrest on 21st February 2007, he has been placed under suspension. Patna High Court LPA No.1252 of 2011 (2) dt.19-09-2011 2 He was released from custody under order dated 21st June 2007 made by this Court. On 20th July 2007, the appellant made a representation to the Chairman of the Bank to revoke the order of suspension and for reinstatement of the appellant in service. The said representation was not decided for a long time. Therefore, the appellant filed above writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the submission of the appellant, Regulation 29 of the Uttar Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulation, 2006 empowers the competent authority to revoke the order of suspension made pursuant to the order of arrest of the Bank’s employee. The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition to the extent that the appellant is directed to make application/representation afresh and the respondents are directed to consider the same keeping in view the aforementioned Regulation 29 and long continuation of suspension of the appellant and the past practice. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner has preferred the present Appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Sarvadeo Singh has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated on account of enmity with the union leader. The appellant’s continuance under suspension from service is not warranted. He has submitted that Regulation 29 requires that the moment the employee is released from custody the order of suspension stands revoked. The aforesaid Clause 1 of the Regulation 29 reads as under : “(29) Officer or employee arrested for debt or on a criminal charge Patna High Court LPA No.1252 of 2011 (2) dt.19-09-2011 3 (1) An officer or employee who is arrested for debt or on a criminal charge or is detained in pursuance of any process of law, may, if so directed by the Competent Authority, be treated as being or having been under suspension from the date of his arrest, or as the case may be, of his detention, upto such date or during such period as the Competent Authority may direct. Provided that in respect of the period in regard to which he is so treated he shall be paid subsistence allowances as specified in Regulation 44. ” The aforesaid Regulation 29 empowers the competent authority to treat the employee of the Bank to be under suspension in the event of his arrest as mentioned in the said Clause. The authority is further vested with the power to revoke the order of suspension. However, nothing said in the Clause (1) or in any other Clause of Regulation 29 suggests that the order of suspension would stand revoked on such employee’s release from custody. On the contrary the said Regulation 29 (1) envisages an express order of revocation of the order of suspension. The contention raised by Mr. Sarvadeo Singh is rejected. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we believe that the appellant could not have been given relief better than the one granted by the learned single Judge. No case for interference is made out. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Anjani /- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)