Ashok Kumar v. The Chairman North Bihar Kshetriaya Gramin Bank And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1333 of 2014 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6056 of 2006 =========================================================== Ashok Kumar son of late Sheo Lal Resident of village and post office Rafipur, Police station Hussain, District Siwan, presently posted as Branch Manager under Branch Sahadei Bujurg, Police Station Sahadei Bujurg, under controller Hajipur, District- Vaishali, North Bihar Kshetriaya Gramin Bank Head Office, Muzaffarpur .... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The Chairman, North Bihar Kshetriaya Gramin Bank, Head Office Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur
2. The General Manager, North Bihar Kshetriaya Gramin Bank Head Office Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur
3. The Controlar, North Bihar Kshetriyaya Gramin Bank, Control Office, Siwan, District Siwan
4. The Proceeding Officer, North Bihar Kshetriyaya Gramin Bank, Control Office, Siwan, District Siwan
5. The Inquiry Officer, North Bihar Kshetriyaya Gramin Bank, Control Office, Siwan, District Siwan .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance:
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Shambhu Prasad Yadav, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prabhakar Jha, Advocate. (Bank) =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 01-11-2017 Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents Bank.
2. In totality of the facts and circumstances the appellant seems to have got away very lightly. All these facts have been taken note of by the learned Single Judge and he rightly refused to get taken
Patna High Court LPA No.1333 of 2014 dt.01-11-2017 2/2 in by the argument that this is a matter which should be remanded back to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration or a second consideration. With the matter of such allegations and charges, if the appellant has managed to keep his job and the Appellate Authority has been more than magnanimous, he should count his blessings.
3. No interference is warranted with the order of the learned Single Judge.
4. Appeal is dismissed.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Dilip, AR AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 03.11.2017 Transmission Date N/A