Ghanshyam Mishra v. The General Manager (H.R.), Head Indian Bank

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7971 of 2012 ====================================================== Ghanshyam Mishra, Son of Shri Chandra Narayan Mishra, Resident of Village- Umari, Police Station- Lakhnour, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The General Manager (H.R.), Head Indian Bank Office no.- 66 Rajaji Salai, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600001.

2.

The Deputy General Manager, Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Muzaffarpur. 3.

The Assistant General Manager and Disciplinary Authority, Indian Bank, Ragional Office, Muzaffarpur.

4.

The Assistant General Manager, Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Muzaffarpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar Prasad, Advocate Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Dhananjay Kashyap, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 29-03-2023 Having regard to the limited submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner, this Court, shorn of unnecessary details, would record the relevant facts and dates which are as follows:- The petitioner was allegedly caught red-handed while accepting bribe. He has been arrested, and criminal proceeding was initiated against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The criminal proceedings resulted in his conviction on 31.07.2001; and the conviction was reversed on account of acquittal of the petitioner in terms of the judgment of this Court in Cr. Appeal No. 287 of 2001 (SJ). This Court had found the conviction to be unsustainable and the petitioner deserved to be

Patna High Court CWJC No.7971 of 2012(6) dt.29-03-2023 2/3 acquitted. The appeal was thus allowed.

The limited grievance of the petitioner is that he has immediately approached the authorities after his acquittal by this Court in Cr. Appeal No. 287 of 2001 (SJ) by making a representation, in February 2010. The respondent-Bank has, however, reinstated him on 25.10.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that for this period he was deprived of his service benefits wrongly as he was prevented from discharging his duties due to the non-consideration of the authorities in accepting his representation dated 03.02.2010 (Annexure-4). It is submitted that there are certain other dues also admissible to the petitioner for the period prior to petitioner's conviction dated 31.07.2001.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for these grievances, he would be approaching the respondent No. 2 (The Deputy General Manager) by making a representation. In view of the limited prayer, learned counsel for the Bank submits that petitioner's claim would be considered in accordance with law; and only benefits, which are found due and admissible, would be paid to the petitioner. In view of stand of the parties, no direction is required.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7971 of 2012(6) dt.29-03-2023 3/3 The application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit his representation for consideration of the authorities.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) SUMIT/- U