The Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank vs Narendra Kumar Sinha

2. Few   facts   need   mention   hereinbelow   for   the disposal of the appeal, which involves a short point.

4. The   respondent   felt   aggrieved   and   filed departmental appeal before the Appellate Authority as prescribed   under   the   service   rules.   The   Appellate Authority,   by   order   dated   13.01.2012,   dismissed   the said   appeal.   The   respondent   felt   aggrieved   and   filed writ petition (CWJC No.6915/2012) in the High Court of Patna and questioned the legality and correctness of his   dismissal   order   and   the   Appellate   Authority's order.

6. On   remand,   the   Appellate   Authority,   by   order dated 06.07.2013, dismissed the respondent’s appeal and affirmed the dismissal order. The respondent felt 3 aggrieved   and   again   filed   writ   petition   (CWJC 25672/2013).   The   Single   Judge,   by   order   dated 26.09.2014 held that charge No. 2 is not proved and without expressing any opinion on charge Nos. 1 & 3 again remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for rehearing on charge Nos. 1 and 3. The Single Judge also proceeded to set aside the order of dismissal.

8. The   Division   Bench,   by   impugned   order, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant­Bank and while modifying the order of the Single Judge held that the Single Judge instead of remanding the case to the 4 Appellate   Authority   should   have   remanded   it   to   the Disciplinary Authority for fresh decision.  Accordingly, the   Division   Bench   remanded   the   case   to   the Disciplinary Authority.

15. So far as the Division Bench is concerned, they having   noticed   the   aforesaid   error   committed   by   the Single   Judge   instead   of   rectifying   the   same   yet committed another error by remanding the case to the disciplinary   authority   instead   of   remanding   it   to   the Single Judge for deciding the writ petition on merits. Remand   of   the   case   to   disciplinary   authority   by   the 6 Division Bench in the facts of this case, in our view, was,   therefore,   unjustified   in   the   light   of   reasons mentioned above.

16. We   are,   therefore,   unable   to   agree   with   the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the Single Judge   and   also   the   Division   Bench   due   to   the aforementioned reasons and, therefore, set aside both the orders.

17. The   appeal   filed   by   the   appellant­Bank   thus succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Impugned order and the order of the Single Judge are hereby set aside. The   writ   petition   (C.W.J.C.   No.25672/2013)   filed   by the respondent­employee is accordingly restored to its original file.

18. The Single Judge will now decide the writ petition on merits in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observations made earlier by the Single Judge and the Division Bench in their respective orders passed earlier and also by this Court.

19. Since   the   matter   is   quite   old,   we   request   the Single   Judge   to   decide   the   writ   petition   as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months.

In C.A. Nos.……..of 2018  @S.L.P(c)Nos  .………of 2018 (D.No.31240 of 2018) These   appeals   are   directed   against   the   final judgment and order dated 30.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in L.P.A. Nos. 96 & 764   of   2015   whereby   the   High   Court   dismissed   the appeal   filed   by   the   respondent­Bank   and   the   appeal filed by the appellant­employee herein. 8 In view of the detailed order passed above in C.A. arising of S.L.P.(c) No.4565 of 2018 filed by the Bank, these appeals stand disposed of.

October 03, 2018  9