IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL REVIEW No.157 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14741 of 2008 ====================================================== Harendra Singh, S/o Late Dhramlal Singh, R/o Vill.- Bishunpur, P.S.- Chandi, Dist.- Bhojpur. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Madhya Bihar Gramin, Bank through its Chairman, having its Headoffice at Meena Plaza, Patna (Behind South of Museum), Patna. 2. Chairman cum-Disciplinary Authority, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank having its Head Office at Meena Plaza, Patna (Behind South of Museum), Patna. 3. Sri Ravindra Nath Tripathi, Son of not known to the petitioner, Presently Inspector cum-Inquiry Officer, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Having its Head Office at Meena Plaza, Patna (Behind South of Museum), Patna. 4. Punjab National Bank through its Chairman, having its office- Bhikhajee Cama Place, Parliament Street, New Delhi. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, Advocate For the M.B.G. Bank : Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Ved Prakash Srivastva, Advocate : Mr. Praveen Prabhakar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 18 10-04-2025 Heard the parties. 2. The present petition has been preferred: “for review of the order dated 01.05.2018 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey (as his Lordship then was) in C.W.J.C. NO-14741/2008 where by the Hon'ble Court has been pleased to dismiss the Writ petition of the petitioner.” 3. The writ petition was filed for the quashing the order dated 22.08.2008 passed by the Chariman-cum- Disciplinary Authority, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank Patna High Court C. REV. No.157 of 2018(18) dt.10-04-2025 2/12 (henceforth for shot ‘the Bank’) by which a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. 4. The case in short is that the petitioner was appointed as Manager on 07.03.1981 and later was shifted as Additional Manager, Koath branch, Rohtas on 24.04.1982. He also served as Branch Manager, Chitaun, Rohtas from 25.02.1985. 5. In the year, 1987 two FIRs came to be lodged against him vide Dawath P.S. Case No. 5 of 1987 and Dawath P.S. Case No. 6 of 1987 for misappropriation of funds of ‘the Bank’. The petitioner was earlier transferred vide letter no. 6152 dated 10.08.1985 with a direction to hand over the charge of the Bank to Ramavtar Singh but he chose to look the other way and instead handed over charge to Shri. Apoorv Mishra who is alleged to have created forged and fictitious entries for the adjustment of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.3,500/- and Rs.1,600/- thus did fraudulent act/misappropriation and removal of the ledger page. 6. The petitioner was later acquitted in both the criminal cases along with other co-accused. However, the departmental proceeding continued and ‘the Bank’ came to the conclusion that one of the charge relating to entries made in different ledgers wore his signatures and as such, found that the Patna High Court C. REV. No.157 of 2018(18) dt.10-04-2025 3/12 charge no.5 stands proved. Accordingly, vide an order dated 11.10.2012, an order was passed for his removal from service which shall not be disqualification for future employment. 7. An appeal came to be filed by the petitioner and the Board of Directors after perusing the entire record and hearing the parties converted the order of removal into compulsory retirement vide an order dated 04.07.2014. 8. The Appellate Authority vide an order dated 04.07.2014 converted the removal from service into Compulsory Retirement under the Regulation 39 (i) (b) (iii) of the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank (Officer & Employee) service Regulation, 2010 (henceforth for short ‘the 2010 regulation’). The findings and observation/decision of ‘the Board’ needs to be incorporated which read as follows: i) it was observed that the point raised above are mere statements made by the appellant, he has not stated anything in his appeal with respect to the charges found proved. ii) the charges proved against the appellant are serious in nature. iii) it is also well settled principle of law the proceedings in a criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously. iv) there is also no bar in initiating departmental Patna High Court C. REV. No.157 of 2018(18) dt.10-04-2025 4/12 proceeding against the appellant either acquitted in criminal case or during pendency of criminal trial, as the yardstick and standard of proof in a criminal case is different from the disciplinary proceeding. v) the Bank kept the departmental proceeding in abeyance in view of the fact that the documents in the case were seized by the police during its investigation. vi) on perusal of records/proceeding, it is also evident that the appellant was given ample opportunities to make his defense, it is observed that appellant has not co-operated in early. conclusion of the day to day proceedings in spite of repeated instructions of the Enquiry Officer. On several occasions he and/or his defence representative remained absent and they sought time on that score only to delay the proceeding. vii) the enquiry officer has discussed submissions of both the parties and also taken cognizance of the status of production/inspection of documents. viii) the Board was informed that the original documents were submitted with the court and after obtaining them from the Hon'ble Court the same was made available for inspectiot to the appellant. This is an admitted fact by the Patna High Court C. REV. No.157 of 2018(18) dt.10-04-2025 5/12 appellant at page no. 97 of his submission made vide his letter dated 11.07.2012 in respect of Enquiry Report. Observation and Decision of the Board NOW THEREFORE after considering all the facts and related documents of the case discussed above and also the in the light points raised by the appellant, the Appellate Board taking a considerate view modifies the already imposed punishment of "Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment" awarded by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 11.10.2012 and imposes a Major Penalty of "Compulsory Retirement" under Regulation 39 (i) (b) (iii) of Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank (Officer Employee) service Regulation 2010 on Shri Harendra Singh. 9. Still aggrieved, a writ petition was filed vide CWJC No. 14741 of 2008 (Harendra Singh Vs. Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank & Ors). A reasoned order came to be passed on 01.05.2018 after having taken note of the entire facts. The observation is there in paragraph no.39 of the order dated 01.05.2018 which read as follows: 39. On perusal of charges mentioned in the charge sheet of departmental enquiry vis-à-vis Patna High Court C. REV. No.157 of 2018(18) dt.10-04-2025 6/12 statements of charges in the charge sheet of criminal case, it appears to this Court the charge nos. 1 to 4 are identical but charge nos. 5 and 6 are not there in the criminal case, the charges which are not in the criminal case are as follows: 5-- vkids }kjk “kk[kk dksvkFk ds cpr tek [kkr la0 2568 ¼tekdrkZ Jh vuxzkfgr flag½ ds ystj iUuk esa fnukad 4-7-85 ,oa 9-9-85 dks Øe”k% :0 3100@& ¼rhu gtkj ,d lkS :Ik;s ek=½ ,oa :0 4200@& ¼pkj gtkj nks lkS :i;s ek=½ dh QthZ tek izfof’V;ksa dks ntZ dj mls vk/kk{kfjr djrs gq, nq:n~ns”;iwoZd ys[kk dk feF;kdj.k fd;k x;kA 6-- 'kk[kk dksvkFk ds dbZ tekdrkZvksa }kjk vius cpr tek [kkrksa esa fofHkUu frfFk;ksa dks tek dh xbZ fofHkUu jkf”k;ksa dh izfof’V;kWa muds lacaf/kr cpr tek [kkrksa ds ystj iUus ,o aikl cqd esa vafdr gSA bu izfof’V;ksa dks vkids }kjk jkf”k;ksa tek fd;s tkus ds lR;kiu izek.kLo:Ik vk/kk{kfjr fd;k x;k gS] ijUrq mDr jkf”k;ksa dh izkfIr lacaf/kr frfFk;ksa dh jksdM+ cgh esa ntZ ugha gSA bl izdkj vkids }kjk mDr fofHkUu frfFk;ksa ds jksdM+iky Jh vfuy dqekj xqIrk] fyfid&lg&dks’kk/;{k dh lkaB&xkaB ls vius inkf/kdkj dk nq:Ik;ksx ,oa vkijkf/kd U;kl Hkax djrs gq, tkylkthiwoZd :0 18800@& ¼vBkjg gtkj vkB lkS :Ik;s ek=½ dk xcu dj fy;k x;k ftldk fooj.k v?ksfyf[kr gS %& Patna High Court C. REV. No.157 of 2018(18) dt.10-04-2025 7/12 Øe cpr tek tekdrkZ dk uke tek fooj.k vHk;qfDr la0 [kkrk la0 frfFk jkf”k 1- 119 Jh jke izlkn ik.Ms; 6-2-84 1500 2- 359 Jh tuknZu nwcs 11-1-84 2200 Jh txUukFk nwcs 3- 473 Jh lj;w flag 23-1-84 2100 ystj ,oa ikl cqd dh izfof’V;k¡ Hkh vkigh ds }kjk ntZ Hkh dh xbZ gSaA 4- 643 Jh jke v”kh’k lkgw 4-1-84 2200 5- 833 Jh gfjukFk rqjgk 30-8-83 2000 6- 1613 Jhefr :fDe.kh nsoh 3-5-83 1600 7- 1691 Jh yky cgknqj jke 3-6-83 1000 8- 1809 Jh egsUnz dqekj Vsyj 31-1-84 2100 9- 2157 Jh “kadj iuzlkn 7-11-83 1500 10- 2244 Jh gfjoa”k falag 4-3-83 900 11- 2280 Jh nqf[kr flag ;kno 12-12-83 1700 bl [kkrk dk ikl cqd ugh ns[kk x;k gSA dqy jkf”k 18800@& ¼vBkjg gtkj vkB lkS :Ik;s ek=½ 10. Further, in paragraph nos. 42 to 45, the case has been dealt threadbare and read as follows: 42. From the aforesaid discussions it is very much clear that petitioner has been acquitted honourably in criminal case with respect to charge nos. 1 to 4 but charge nos. 5 and 6 of departmental proceeding were not the subject Patna High Court C. REV. No.157 of 2018(18) dt.10-04-2025 8/12 matter of the criminal proceeding, charge no.6 has been found proved. Hence acquittal in criminal case will not be of any assistance as proving one serious charge is sufficient to up hold the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority. Reliance can be place on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Bidya Bhushan Mahapatra, reported in AIR 1963 SC 779. 43. The issue of taking opinion by the Appellate Authority from the Chief Vigilance Officer before passing the final order is vitiated on account of non-supply of the opinion to the petitioner. In the present case before dealing with this issue it has to be taken into consideration that the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order of dismissal from service and Appellate Authority, as per norms set out by the Bank in a case having vigilance angle mandatorily required to take concurrence from the Chief Vigilance Officer, referred the matter for concurrence. The Appellate Authority considered the memo of appeal, without taking note of report of CVO passed reasoned order reduced the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement as provided under Section 39(i)(b)(iii) of the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank (Officer & Employee) Service Regulation, 2010. None service of the report would not erode efficacy of Patna High Court C. REV. No.157 of 2018(18) dt.10-04-2025 9/12 the order of Appellate Authority, has passed reasoned order interfered with the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner, without placing reliance on the opinion of Chief Vigilance Officer. Petitioner has not taken plea that Appellate Authority passed the order at the dictation of Chief Vigilance Officer. In such circumstances, surely it was not necessity for the Appellate Authority to supply the report of CVO as he has not taken into consideration. Reliance can be placed on the judgment in the case of Stat Bank of India v. S.N. Goyal, reported in AIR 2008 Sc 2594. 44. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to set aside the order of Appellate Authority and Disciplinary Authority. 45. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. 11. The Writ Court came to the conclusion that one of the charge against the petitioner stands proved which led to the punishment order. The Court further held that acquittal in criminal case will not be of any assistance as proving one serious charge is sufficient to hold the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority justified. 12. The Court further noted that the non-supply of the opinion of the Chief Vigilance Officer does not matter as the Patna High Court C. REV. No.157 of 2018(18) dt.10-04-2025 10/12 petitioner has not taken plea that the Appellate Authority has passed the order at the dictation of the Chief Vigilance Officer. In that background, non-supply of the report of Chief Vigilance Officer which has not been taken into consideration does not vitiate the entire proceeding. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. 13. Aggrieved, by the order dated 01.05.2018, the present review petition. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fraudulent act done in the ledger book as recorded in one of the charge which stands proved was also part of the criminal proceeding and as such, the Writ Court should have interfered with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority/Appellate Authority. He submits that all the charges leveled against the petitioner were part of the criminal case and once acquittal order was passed, the Authorities were also duty bound to give clean chit to him. 15. Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat, learned Senior Counsel representing ‘the Bank’ on the other hand has taken this Court once again to paragraph no. 39 and the other relevant paragraph of the Writ Court order to show that it came to the conclusion that one of the charge against the petitioner of Patna High Court C. REV. No.157 of 2018(18) dt.10-04-2025 11/12 having played fraud in the ledger book which wore his signature stands proved and as such, ‘the Bank’ was absolutely justified in passing the order. 16. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that nowhere in the review petition, it has been recorded by the petitioner that the finding arrived at by ‘the Bank’ about the ledger book having his signature is/are incorrect. The absence of any such statement on affidavit by the petitioner clearly proved that the findings arrived at by ‘the Bank’ regarding the charge which led to the order against him is justified. The petitioner has filed a fraudulent petition which needs to be dismissed with cost. 17. This Court has gone through the facts of the case as also the materials on record and the submissions of the respective parties. Though the petitioner has tried to impress upon this Court that all the charges which were put forward against him by ‘the Bank’ were part of the Criminal Court and as he got acquittal, in that background, the order of removal from service/compulsory retirement by them should have been interfered with by the Writ Court but as the same was dismissed, the review, the facts are contrary to what has been submitted. One of the charge against him is/are that he put in his signature Patna High Court C. REV. No.157 of 2018(18) dt.10-04-2025 12/12 on the fraudulent entries made in the ledger. Despite repeated query by this Court on the said finding by ‘the Board’, the petitioner who himself is present in the Court and assisting his learned counsel chose not to answer to the said question. 18. Thus, the submissions put forward by the learned Senior Counsel for ‘the Bank’ that it was the petitioner who put in his signature on the fraudulent entries made in the ledger book was rightly found proved. In that background, the findings arrived at by the Writ Court on 01.05.2018 that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority/Appellate Authority need no interference is/was quite justified. 19. The Review Petition as such stands dismissed with a cost of of Rs.1,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Bhojpur. Failure to do so, appropriate steps should be taken for the realization of the amount in accordance with law. vinayak/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U