PATNA, India, July 8 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on June 16:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1007 of 2024
In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19439 of 2012
1. Bihar Gramin Bank, Head Office, Kalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur, PIN 842001 through its Chairman.
2. The Chairman cum Disciplinary Authority, Bihar Gramin Bank, Head Office, Kalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur, PIN - 842001.
3. Board of Bihar Gramin Bank cum Appellate Authority through its General Manager, Head Office, Kalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur - 842001.
4. The General Manager, Bihar Gramin Bank, Head Office, Kalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur, PIN - 842001.
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Madhusudan Prasad Tanti, Son of Sri Late Feku Prasad Tanti, Resident of Village and P.O. Harnaut, P.S. Harnaut, District Nalanda.
.....Respondent(s)
CORAM:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 16-06-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present intra court appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.06.2024 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 19439 of 2012, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of dismissal bearing No. 784 dated 23.11.2011 read with Administrative Order No. 785 dated 23.11.2011 as well as the appellate order contained in Letter No. 389 dated 26.07.2012, and further directed the respondents to pay the salary and all consequential service and retiral benefits to the writ petitioner.
3. The brief facts of the present case are that the respondent-writ petitioner was appointed in the erstwhile Champaran Kshetriya Gramin Bank on the post of Branch Manager. A charge-sheet dated 10.08.1996 was issued alleging that at the time of seeking appointment he had produced a forged and fabricated caste certificate showing himself to belong to the Scheduled Caste community "Pan", whereas he actually belonged to the "Tanti" caste, which was included in the Backward Class category in the State of Bihar. It was alleged that by making such misrepresentation he secured appointment against a post reserved for Scheduled Castes.
4. Pursuant to the charge-sheet, a departmental proceeding was initiated. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 09.01.2009 holding that the charge levelled against the respondent stood not proved.
5. The Disciplinary Authority, however, on examination of the materials available on record, disagreed with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and issued a note of disagreement dated 03.10.2011. Instead of submitting his response on the merits of the disagreement note, the respondent sought certain documents, namely the CBI report, letter dated 26.04.2010 and the report of one Shri D.P. Singh. The Disciplinary Authority informed the respondent that the said documents neither formed part of the evidence adduced in the departmental proceeding nor had been relied upon while recording disagreement with the enquiry report. Despite being granted further opportunity, the respondent did not submit any substantive reply to the note of disagreement.
Rest of the judgement can be viewed here: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyMxMDA3IzIwMjQjMSNO-U--am1--QebWkV5Tw=
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
