IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2673 of 2010 DEVENDRA NATH SINHA SON OF LATE PARAS NATH, RESIDENT OF SASTRI NAGAR, MUNGER, P.O. MUNGER, P.S. KASIM BAZAR, DISTT- MUNGER, AT PRESENT POSTED AS OFFICER, BIHAR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK,BARBIGH …………………………………………………….. PETITIONER Versus BIHAR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN, SRI SP. SINGH,BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, MUNGER- 811201 2. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, BIHAR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK, THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN, SRI S.P.SINGH, BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK –MUNGER- 811201 3. SRI S.P.SINGH, CHAIRMAN, BIHAR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK, BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, MUNGER-811201 4. SRI P.K. PAN, GENERAL MANAGER ( REPORTING OFFICER), BIHAR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK, BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, MUNGER- 811201 5. SRI A.S. VAIDYA, U.CO. BANK, HEAD OFFICE, CALCUTTA, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, BIHAR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK, BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, MUNGER 6. SRI GOPI CHAND, ZONAL MANAGER, U.CO. BANK, PATNA, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, B.K.G. BANK, BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, MUNGER 7. SRI GOPAL MOHAN KRISHNA, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, B.K.G. BANK, BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, MUNGER 8. SRI GANESH SHANKAR, NAWARD PATNA, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, B.K.G. BANK, BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, MUNGER 9. SRI SAMEER KUMAR SINGH, MEMBER CONGRESS PARTY, BIHAR, MEMBER BOARD OF DIRECTORS, B.K.G. BANK, BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, MUNGER. 10. SRI LALLAN SINGH, COMMISSIONER, MUNGER, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, B.K.G. BANK, BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK- MUNGER 11. SRI DEEPAK PRASAD, COMMISSIONER, BHAGALPUR, MEMBER BOARD OF DIRECTORS, B.K.G. BANK, BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK,MUNGER……………… OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the petitioner- Mr. Nand Gopal Mishra, Advocate For Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank : Mr. Abhinav Srvivastava,Advocate For Opp. Party Nos. 5 and 6 :- Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey,Advocate 4 2-11-2010 Heard the parties. After the Division Bench Judgment in L.P.A. No. 815 of 2 2007 the petitioner was dis-satisfied with revised marks given to him under various heads relating to Performance Appraisal Report. The contempt petition bearing M.J.C. No. 757 of 2008 was finally disposed of on 5-5-2010 vide annexure-3, which shows that the Bank has agreed that the Board of Directors shall consider whether the officer has been granted two marks for attendance and punctuality and two marks for job knowledge but zero marks on the head `Initiative’ and `Diligence’, the award of marks based on rationality or not and whether 0.8 out of per centage under the relevant head could be rounded off or not. The decision by the Board of Directors contained in annexure-D shows that the Board came to a conclusion that the zero marks awarded to the petitioner by appraiser under head Initiative, Diligence and Integrity during 1995-96 were commensurate to his conduct and performance and the Board decided not to make any change in the marks awarded by the appraiser. Similarly the Board found that rounding of fractional marks to full marks will open Pandora’s box leading to several anomalies in the promotion already effected in the year 2001 and hence did not accept petitioner’s request in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that better marks should have been awarded under different heads because the punishment of dismissal as per records was set aside in appeal but learned counsel for the Bank has pointed out that it was not a clean findings of innocence rather it was passed by the appellate authority because the petitioner had deposited the money allegedly embezzled to 3 a tune of Rs.11,69,000/- . In exercise of contempt jurisdiction, we cannot go into issues based on merits. We are satisfied that the opposite parties have not committed any deliberate violation of the orders of this court. The contempt application is, therefore, finally disposed of with liberty that if petitioner is so advised he may challenge the decision against him before appropriate forum in accordance with law. ( T. Meena Kumari, J) Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)