← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/2220/2017dismissed

Jai Prakash Singh v. The Chairman Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank And ORS

2017-09-05Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2220 of 2017 ====================================================== Jai Prakash Singh, Son of Late Radha Raman Singh, R/o village - Rampurva, P.S. Harsidhi, Distt. - East Champaran and at Presently Posted as officer Scale II (under Suspension) and the then Branch Manager, Khorampur Branch, R/o Gopalganj, Distt. - Gopalganj.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Chairman, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Kalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur. 2.

The General Manager, Uttar Bihar Grammin Bank, having (head Office Kalambag Chowk, Muzaffarpur) Cum Displinary authority of the Bank. 3.

The Regional Manager, Uttar Bihar Grammin Bank, having regional Office Gopalganj.

4.

The Enquiry officer (Sunil Kumar Singh) Head Office. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent-Bank : Mr. Prabhakar Jha, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT & ORDER Date : 05-09-2017 The petitioner is aggrieved by an order, dated 16.06.2016, issued vide Memo No. 194, passed by the General Manager, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur, whereby, the petitioner has been put under suspension during the pendency of departmental proceeding against him.

2. The petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was working as Branch Manager, Khorampur Branch, under the regional office at Gopalganj.

Patna High Court CWJC No.2220 of 2017 dt.05-09-2017 2/2

3. Charge-sheet and imputation of misconduct, in support of article of charges, have been brought on record by way of Annexures to the present writ application.

4. On perusal of the writ application, I find that no illegality has been pointed out in issuance of order of suspension. No case for quashing of the impugned order of suspension was made out.

5. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

6. It is, however, observed that conclusion of departmental proceeding against the petitioner should be expedited and should be concluded preferably within a period of six (6) months from today.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Praveen-II/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 06.09.2017 Transmission Date N/A