Krishna Kant Mishra v. Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank And ORS

Patna High Court LPA No.1388 of 2012 dt.07-04-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1388 of 2012 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 612 of 2012 ===========================================================

1. Krishna Kant Mishra S/O Late Jagdish Mishra R/O Indrath Khurd, P.S.- Bikramganj, District- Rohtas, At Present Working As Scale-Ii Officer, Head Quarter, Regional Officer, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Ara .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank Through Its Chairman Head Office, Mina Plaza, South Of Museum, Patna-1

2. The Chairman, Head Office Mina Plaza, South Of Museum, Patna-1

3. Regional Officer, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Aurangabad .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. MANINDRA KISHORE SINGH For the Respondent/s : Mr. MAHESH NARAYAN PARBAT =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) Date: 07-04-2015 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Senior Counsel for the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank and with their consent the appeal was taken for final disposal at this stage itself. The appellant was the writ petitioner and challenged the order of punishment as imposed by the disciplinary authority and not interfered in appeal.

He had challenged that withholding stagnation pay with accumulative effect was a major punishment and that being so, charges ought to have been framed and noticed accordingly, issue for a major penalty and not having been done, there was procedural infirmity denying him natural justice. Learned single Judge has gone through the facts and the law and we do not intend to take a different view in the matter.

Patna High Court LPA No.1388 of 2012 dt.07-04-2015 noted that the delinquency is of the year prior to 2011 when the old Rules [Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank (officers and Employees) Service Regulation, 2006] were applicable. The proceedings were initiated under the old Rules. Regulation 38 whereof clearly provided that withholding of stagnation pay with accumulative effect was a minor punishment. If that were so, then, the procedure was different and the procedure undoubtedly, has been accordingly followed. It is only under the 2010 Rules, after these proceedings have already been initiated under the old Rules, that withholding of increment with accumulative effect was amended and brought in as a major punishment. Thus, in our view, learned single Judge did not err in dismissing the writ petition. We also accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J) (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U