Rajiv Kumar v. The Chairman

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5509 of 2026 ====================================================== Rajiv Kumar Fathers name Gopal Singh, Resident of House No. 370, 89, Rahul Nagar, Road No.3, P.S- Brahmpura, MIT, District- Muzaffarpur, Bihar Pin- 842003.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Chairman Bihar Gramin Bank, Head Office, Sri Vishnu Commercial Complex, N.H.-30, New Bypass, Near B.P. Highway Services Petrol Pump, Ashochak, Patna- 800030.

2.

The General Manager, Bihar Gramin Bank, Head Office, Sri Vishnu Commercial Complex, N.H-30, New Bypass, Near B.P. Highway Services Petrol Pump, Ashochak, Patna- 800030.

3.

The Assistant General Manager, Bihar Gramin Bank, Head Office, Sri Vishnu Commercial Complex, N.H-30, New Bypass, Near B.P. Highway Services Petrol Pump, Ashochak, Patna- 800030. 4.

The Regional Manager, Bihar Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur, Ramrekha Complex, Power House Chawk, Muzaffarpur.

5.

The Branch Manager, Bihar Gramin Bank, Jasauli Branch, P.S.- Kathiya, P.O. Jasauli, Muzaffarpur.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dhiraj Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Rsuresh Pd.Singh, No.1, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 15-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent -Bank.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 04.10.2025 issued by the General Manager, Bihar Gramin Bank, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to act in accordance with the law laid down in Ajay Kumar

Patna High Court CWJC No.5509 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026 2/2 Choudhary vs. Union of India, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank raises a preliminary objection, submitting that the order of suspension is an appealable order and, therefore, the petitioner ought to avail the statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order.

4. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an appeal has already been preferred. However, due to an inadvertent mistake, a copy of the said appeal could not be brought on record. It is further submitted that a copy of the email through which the appeal was filed has been annexed.

5. In light of the submissions made and upon perusal of the e-mail dated 02.12.2025, this Court directs the respondent authority to consider and dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, if pending, within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the event no such appeal is pending, the respondent authorities shall ensure that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner be concluded within a period of six (6) months from today.

6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed off.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Ashwini/- U