Raju Kumar Choudhary v. Mr. Rajnish Kumar, The Chairman, State Bank Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 747 of 2019 Arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6019 of 2016 ====================================================== Raju Kumar Choudhary, aged about 34 years, Gender-Male, Son of Sri Dinesh Prasad Choudhary, Ex Customer Assistant, P. F. Index No.5999405, State Bank of India, Muzaffarpur Branch (00138) Resident of at and P.O.- Bariyarpur, Via-Pair, District-Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Mr. Rajnish Kumar, the Chairman, State Bank of India, Nariman Point, Mumbai.

2.

Mr. Vijay Singh Negi, the General Manager (Network-III),State Bank of India, Local Head Officer, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna. 3.

Sri Naval Kishore Mishra, the Deputy General Manager (B & O), State Bank of India (Appellate Authority), Human Resources Section, Zonal Office Club Road, Muzaffarpur-842002 (Bihar). 4.

Mr. Kundan Tyoti, the Regional Manager (Region-I)-cum-Disciplinary Authority, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Club Road, Muzaffarpur, 842002 (Bihar).

5.

Sri Manoj Kumar, Investigating Officer,Region-I, State Bank of India, Club Road, Muzaffarpur-842001(Bihar).

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bindhayachal Singh and Mr. Ram Binod Singh, Advocates For the Bank :

Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 02-09-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank').

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the Bank submitted that the petitioner himself has preferred appeal against the order

Patna High Court MJC No.747 of 2019 dt.02-09-2019 2/2 dated 10.05.2018 passed in CWJC No. 6019 of 2016, violation of which is alleged in the present application. The same is not denied.

3. In view thereof, the application stands disposed off with liberty to the petitioner that as and when the cause of action arises, he shall be at liberty to move, in accordance with law, before the appropriate forum, for any violation of the order of the Court.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR U T