Shyama Nand Singh vs The State Bank Of Inida
2025 Latest Caselaw 577 Patna

Patna High Court

Shyama Nand Singh vs The State Bank Of Inida on 14 July, 2025

Author: Harish Kumar

Bench: Harish Kumar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5429 of 2020
     ======================================================
     Shyama Nand Singh Son of Late Mahabir Singh Resident of Ward No.08,
     Birpur, Basantpur, P.S. Birpur, Dist- Supaul, Bihar, Pin- 854340.
                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                          Versus
1.    The State Bank of India through the Chairman, State Bank of India,
      Corporate Centre, Madame Cama Road, Mumbai- 400021.
2.   The Appellate Authority and Chief General Manager, State Bank of India,
     Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna- 800001.
3.   The General Manager (Network-III) and Appointing Authority, State Bank
     of India, Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna- 800001.
4.   The Chief General Manager (HR), State Bank of India, Corporate Centre,
     Madame Cama Road, Mumbai- 400021.
5.   The Chief General Manager (MCG-II), State Bank of India, Corporate
     Centre, Madame Cama Road, Mumbai- 400021.
6.   The Chief General Manager (MGG-III), State Bank of India, Corporate
     Centre, Madame Cama Road, Mumbai- 400021.
7.   The Deputy General Manager (B and O), State Bank of India,
     Administrative Office, Purnea, Bihar.
8.   The Deputy General Manager (Appeal and Review), State Bank of India,
     Corporate Centre, Madame Cama Road, Mumbai- 400021.
9.   The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office,
     Madhubani, Bihar.
10. The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office,
     Saharsa, Bihar.                                 ... ... Respondent/s
    ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s    :       Mr. Bipin Krishna Singh, Adv.
     For the Respondent/s    :       Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Adv.
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
                         ORAL JUDGMENT
     Date : 14-07-2025
                 This Court has heard Mr Bipin Krishna Singh,

      learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjiv Kumar,

      learned Advocate for the State Bank of India.

                    2. The challenge made in the present writ petition is

      to the order dated 22.08.2016 contained in Letter No.

      VIG/Gen/VK/173 issued under the signature of the General
 Patna High Court CWJC No.5429 of 2020 dt.14-07-2025
                                           2/21




         Manager & Appointing Authority, whereby the petitioner has

         been awarded the punishment of dismissal from service in terms

         of Rule 67(j) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules,

         1992 with further direction that the period of suspension will

         not be treated on duty. The appeal preferred by the petitioner

         against the original order also came to be rejected vide letter

         bearing No. HR/A&R/2919 dated 16.12.2016; and further the

         review petition filed by the petitioner also rejected by the

         Reviewing Authority, as conveyed vide letter bearing No. 638

         dated 03.10.2017, which are also put to challenge in the present

         writ petition.

                       3. The brief facts, as culled out from the materials

         available on record, are as follows:

                       (i) The petitioner joined the service of the State

         Bank of India          on 26.12.1985 as Clerk-cum-Cashier. After

         serving so many years, the petitioner was promoted to officer

         cadre in JMGS-I and further in MMGS-II as also MMGS-III in

         the officer cadre of the respondent Bank.

                       (ii) While the petitioner was posted as Branch

         Manager at Laukaha Branch during 16.09.2014 to 08.04.2015

         and at Simrahi Bazar Branch during 01.06.2010 to 30.09.2011,

         the petitioner was allegedly found indulge in official
 Patna High Court CWJC No.5429 of 2020 dt.14-07-2025
                                           3/21




         irregularities as well as misdeeds with dishonest intention,

         prejudicial to the Bank's interest and its credentials and

         goodwill, causing pecuniary loss to it. There was furhter

         allegation, inter alia, that he put hold on the entire balance in

         the respective savings bank account of two customers after

         disbursement of loan with intention to compel them to visit the

         Branch to pay illegal gratification. Customers were also

         misbehaved and mishandled by the petitioner and other officials

         and after extracting illegal gratification, hold on account was

         removed. To destroy the evidence of misdeeds, the petitioner

         replaced the digital video recorder syster of CCTV camera.

                       (iii) Taking cognizance of the aforesaid act,   an

         internal investigation was carried out; on being found the

         imputation prima facie true, the disciplinary authority vide his

         letter dated 09.07.2015 placed the petitioner under suspension in

         contemplation of the disciplinary proceeding. A memo of charge

         along with list of documents as contained in Annexure-13 to the

         writ petition were duly served and the petitioner was asked to

         submit his written statement of defence. On being found the

         explanation not worth consideration, the disciplinary enquiry

         proceeded further and the enquiry officer as also the presenting

         officer were appointed. After completion of the enquiry, the
 Patna High Court CWJC No.5429 of 2020 dt.14-07-2025
                                           4/21




         enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report dated 23.05.2016,

         copy of which is marked as Annexure-14 to the writ petition.

                       (iv) The allegation in relation to Laukaha Branh

         charge Nos. 1 to 6, 8 and 10 to 13 stood proved. Further the

         allegation pertaining to Simrahi Branch, charge Nos. 1 to 3 and

         5 stood proved. On receipt of the enquiry report, the disciplinary

         authority issued second show cause notice along with enquiry

         report to the petitioner, directing him to submit his response.

         Finally the disciplinary authority upon being not satisfied with

         the explanation tendered by the petitioner and upon agreeing

         with the finding of the enquiry officer inflicted the punishment

         of dismissal from service and further directed his period of

         suspension to be treated as not on duty.

                       (v) Aggrieved with the afore noted impugned order,

         the petitioner preferred appeal which was rejected by the

         Appellate Authority cum Chief General Manager (Annexure-2

         to the writ petition). Dissatisfied with the order, the petitioner

         submitted review petition before the Reviewing Authority.

         However, the same was also rejected vide order dated

         21.07.2017

(Annexure-3 to the writ petition).

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Bipin

Krishna Singh taking this Court through the relevant Patna High Court CWJC No.5429 of 2020 dt.14-07-2025

prescriptions of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules,

1992 especially Rule 68(2)(iii) contended that the disciplinary

authority was obligated to frame definite and distinct charges on

the basis of the allegations against the officer and the article of

charge, together with a statement of the allegations on which

they are based, list of documents and witnesses relied upon and

as far as possible, copies of such documents and statements of

witnesses, if any, shall be communicated in writing. However

memo of charge clearly suggests that it does not have the list of

witnesses; nonetheless, during the course of enquiry 9

prosecution witnesses were presented in the enquiry. Moreover,

at no point of time, the necessary witnesses were produced to

prove the documents and, as such, the petitioner is deprived

from examination and cross examination. Reliance has also

been placed on a decision rendered by the Apex Court in the

case of Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Ors.

[(2009) 2 SCC 570], as also State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Saroj

Kumar Sinha [(2010) 2 SCC 772].

5. The very initiation of the disciplinary proceeding

after keeping the petitioner under suspension and submitting the

memo of charge beyond the period of three months clearly

smacks malafide. The entire disciplinary proceeding against the Patna High Court CWJC No.5429 of 2020 dt.14-07-2025

petitioner was conducted in a slipshod manner and the enquiring

authority having played a partisan role did not function as an

independent quasi judicial authority, inasmuch as, the relevant

documents demanded by the defence were not provided. The

enquiry officer has travelled beyond the charge sheet to hold

certain allegation is proved. Subsequently the enquiry was

concluded ex parte in absence of the petitioner and thus serious

prejudice has been caused to the rights and entitlement of the

petitioner. Referring to the order of punishment, it is further

contended that in no circumstances it can be said to be speaking

order and the allegations have been held to be proved as ipse

dixit manner. The order is not in conformity with the

observation of the learned Division Bench in the case of

Chandradip Sinha v. The State of Bihar & Ors.[2000(3)

PLJR 64], wherein the Court observed: "it is not expected that

the disciplinary authority should write a judgment in the same

manner as courts do, but an order imposing punishment under

Rule 55-A of the Rules must at least disclose the application of

mind by the disciplinary authority to the fact of the case and the

reasons for conclusion reached, even though they may be stated

briefly". Reliance has also been placed on a decision in Kuldeep

Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors [(1999) 2 SCC 10]. Patna High Court CWJC No.5429 of 2020 dt.14-07-2025

6. The appellate authority has also failed to exercise

his coextensive power to re-appreciate the eivdence or the

nature of punishment. The appellate authority ought to have

considered whether findings were justified and/or whether the

penalty was excessive or inadequate. To emphasis the

submission afore noted, reliance has also been placed on a

three-judge Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors. [(1995) 6

SCC 749].

7. It is also urged that with respect to the charges, an

FIR was also instituted against the petitioner and others but

others have been set off by giving minor punishment whereas

discrimination has been caused to the the petitioner and he has

been inflicted with harsh punishment, despite the petitioner

having unblemished service career spending more than 30 years

without there being any complaint against him.

8. Mr. Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioner

further contended that even the order of review, the Reviewing

Authority does not show any application of mind and has failed

to consider the submission of PW-6 (the alleged complainant)

namely, Rabi Nath Jha, that the petitioner was not present in the

Bank at the time of incidence. It is lastly contended that the Patna High Court CWJC No.5429 of 2020 dt.14-07-2025

petitioner has been visited with harsh punishment which has

robbed him of his terminal benefit in his final year of his

service; all the more the petitioner had an unblemished career.

9. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, learned

Advocate representing the State Bank of India refuted the

contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner and

submitted at the outset that the order of the reviewing authority

was communicated to the petitioner on 03.10.2017 but the

present writ petition was filed on 25.02.2020, after a delay of

two and a half years. Referring to a Bench decision of this Court

in the case of Ashok Kumar Ojha vs. The State of Bihar &

Ors. [2023 (6) BLJ 537], it is submitted that the Court relying

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs State of Tamil Nadu [(1975) 1 SCC

152] held that in a case relating to service matter/promotion

matter, an aggrieved person should approach the Court at least

within six months or at the most a year of the arising of the

cause of action. Taking this Court through the charges, he

further contended that all the charges are distinct and specific

that the petitioner committed financial irregularities and

misconduct with dishonest intention in a manner highly

prejudicial to the Bank's interest and causing pecuniary loss to Patna High Court CWJC No.5429 of 2020 dt.14-07-2025

it; besides the acceptance of illegal gratification from a

customer.

10. Referring to Annexure-R/1 to the counter

affidavit, learned Advocate for the Bank controverted the

submission of the petitioner that he was not supplied complete

list of documents and copies thereof. All the documents relied

upon by the prosecution as well as the documents demanded by

the petitioner have been provided by the presenting officer to

him during enquiry, as is evident from Annexure-R/2 of the

counter affidavit. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for

the Bank that during the entire enquiry, the petitioner or in case

of his absence, his defence counsel was present on each date,

except on 19.04.2016, irrespective of the full knowledge of the

scheduled date. The enquiry proceeding register clearly

falsified the allegation of non communication, rather the

petitioner has all along been informed about the next date of

hearing by the enquiry officer through letter and sms; moreover

the petitioner has never produced any medical report of his

illness. In course of enquiry; the charges were found proved and

based upon the same, the petitioner was inflicted with the

punishment by giving proper opportunity to him, considering

his explanation. In this regard, learned Advocate for the Bank Patna High Court CWJC No.5429 of 2020 dt.14-07-2025

referred to a decision in the case of Boloram Bordoloi vs

Lakhimi Gaolia Bank & Ors. [(2021) 3 SCC 806] to the effect

that if the punishment imposed is based upon the finding

recorded by the enquiry report, no further elaborate reasons are

required by the disciplinary authority/appellate authority.

11. Taking further this Court through the record, it is

further contended that in course of enquiry, the petitioner was

also afforded opportunity to cross examine the witnesses but the

defence counsel engaged by him waived of his right to cross

examine the witnesses, which fact is evident from the enquiry

proceeding register as well as the enquriy report. He lastly

contended that the employee of the Bank is required to take all

possible steps to protect the interest of the Bank and discharge

his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence

and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer as he

deals with money of the depositors. To reinforce the aforesaid

submission, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Apex

Court in the case of State Bank Of India & Ors vs Ramesh

Dinkar Punde [(2006) 7 SCC 212].

12. Before this Court proceeds further, it would be

pertinent to summarize the observations made by the Apex

Court in various cases which emphasized the role of a Bank Patna High Court CWJC No.5429 of 2020 dt.14-07-2025

employee. In Union Bank Of India vs Vishwa Mohan [(1998)

4 SCC 310] the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: "It

needs to be emphasised that in the banking business absolute

devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved

by every bank employee and in particular the bank officer. If

this is not observed, the confidence of the public/depositors

would be impaired".

13. Reiterating the aforesaid observation in the case

of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial

Bank & Ors vs. P.C.Kakkar [(2003) 4 SCC 364], the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held as under:

"14. A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the Bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik (1996 (9) SCC 69), it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a Bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of Patna High Court CWJC No.5429 of 2020 dt.14-07-2025

discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court."

14. It would be worth benefiting to quote the

relevant extract of the decision rendered in the case of Regional

Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C, Etawah & Ors. vs Hoti Lal & Anr

[(2003) 3 SCC 605] where the Court noted as under:

"If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity and trust- worthiness is must and unexceptionable."

15. Indubitably a Bank officer, who is engaged in

public business dealing with money of the depositors and

customers, in all circumstances, is obliged to protect the interest

of the Bank and discharge his duty with utmost honesty and

diligence so that the confidence of the public/depositors would

not be shaken and impaired.

16. Coming to the case in hand, after hearing the

learned Advocates for the respective parties, and meticulously

examined the record, this Court finds that the imputation Patna High Court CWJC No.5429 of 2020 dt.14-07-2025

levelled against the petitioner under memo of charge are specific

and on being asked, the petitioner has submitted his written

statement of defence. The defence documents submitted on

behalf of the petitioner were also accepted and marked as

Exhibit (Defence Exhibit No. 1 to Defence Exhibit No 7).

However, he did not press to produce any witness as a witness

on his behalf. Even if it is accepted that the memo of charge

does not contain list of any witnesses, nonetheless, nine

witnesses were produced by the presenting officer on behalf of

the Bank and the record clearly suggests that all the time the

petitioner was offered to cross examine him or them. However,

the petitioner or his defence counsel has never chosen to cross

examine them. Hence the plea of the petitioner that there is no

list of witness and he has been deprived from cross examination

does not sustain. In the aforesaid premise, the decision of the

Apex Court in Roop Singh Negi (supra) and Saroj Kumar

Sinha (supra), would not be applicable on this issue.

17. Further the contention of the petitioner that the

required document has not been handed over to him in course of

enquiry and thereby he has not been afforded opportunity of

hearing also does not find substantiated. The enquiry proceeding

register, especially Anneuxre-R/2 of the counter affidavit at P- Patna High Court CWJC No.5429 of 2020 dt.14-07-2025

43 and 47 and 55, clearly suggests that the acknowledgment has

been made on behalf of the petitioner showing receipt of the

documents. Moreover, except sweeping allegation, it has not

been disclosed that in absence of those documents what

prejudice has been caused to him. Mere non supply of the

documents which may not have resulted any prejudice caused to

the employee, the order passed by the disciplinary authority

cannot be faulted. It would be worth benefiting to extract the

relevant observation of the Apex Court in the case of S. Janaki

Iyer Vs. Union of India & Ors.[2025 SCC OnLine SC 1179]

"21. No prejudice having been caused because of the non-supply of the preliminary Inquiry Report to the Appellant, the plea of violation of the principles of natural justice would not be available to the Appellant. As a matter of principle, violation of the principles of justice cannot be on the touchstone of technical infringement made the basis of setting aside the action taken by the authority against an employee unless it is established that grave prejudice has been caused to an employee because of non-supply of a particular document. Nothing has also come. on record which would indicate that the Appellant had ever sought for the Preliminary Inquiry Report after the issuance of the chargesheet. Similar would be the position with regard to the other documents also which are alleged to have not been supplied to her as the nature and extent of disadvantage or handicap caused or suffered by the Appellant, in the absence of the documents, is missing in the departmental proceedings or the Patna High Court CWJC No.5429 of 2020 dt.14-07-2025

pleadings.

22. No grounds have been laid down indicating the prejudice which has been caused to her either during the inquiry or at the stage of projecting her response to the show cause notice given by the disciplinary authority. Mere assertion that some documents have not been supplied or even mentioning the said documents would not be enough unless the consequential prejudice which would or has been caused to a delinquent employee is put forth.

23. The Court is not bound to simply accept an assertion of a delinquent employee and proceed to question the disciplinary proceedings without being satisfied with regard to any prejudice having been caused to the employee."

18. The enquiry proceeding register, copy of which

is also placed on record by the Bank, also demonstrates that the

petitioner or his defence counsel had all along been put to notice

of the scheduled date. Thus even in the full knowledge or notice

if the delinquent or defence counsel failed to appear, no blame

could have been fastened to the Bank. The documentary

evidence as well as witnesses have been examined in presence

of the petitioner or his defence counsel but none of them raised

any comment or bothered to cross examine the witnesses and

this fact has taken note of in the enquiry proceeding by the

enquiry officer. Except the charge of manhandling and

assaulting the complaint, all of them are based on documentary Patna High Court CWJC No.5429 of 2020 dt.14-07-2025

evidence. At this stage, it would be relevant to quote the

unparalleled and inimitable expressions summed up by the

living legend Mr. V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. in State Of Haryana and

Anr. vs Rattan Singh [(1977) 2 SCC 491]

"4. ...........in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and Administrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor text books, although we have been taken through case-law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fair play is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good. ............"

19. The finding of the enquiry officer is based upon

the material evidences brought through the documentary

evidence and the witnesses who have also supported the

charges. Hence the finding returned by the enquiry officer that

the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved cannot Patna High Court CWJC No.5429 of 2020 dt.14-07-2025

be said to be based upon no evidence.

20. It has rightly been observed by the Apex Court in

the case of State Of Karnataka & Anr. vs N.Gangaraj [(2020)

3 SCC 423] that the power of judicial review conferred on the

constitutional court is not that of appellate authority but is only

confined to the decision making process. The courts have been

reminded that it ought not interfere with the conclusion of the

disciplinary authority unless finding is not supported by any

evidence or it can be said that no reasonable person could have

reached such a finding.

21. In the case of State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

vs S. Sree Rama Rao [(AIR 1963 SC 1723] it has been ruled

that the the High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under

Article 226 of the Constitution a Court of appeal over the

decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry

against a public servant. It is concerned to determine whether

the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and

according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and

whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there

is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to

hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may

reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is Patna High Court CWJC No.5429 of 2020 dt.14-07-2025

guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a

petition for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution to

review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on

the evidence.

22. The petitioner has also failed to point out any

material infirmities in the enquiry or he was subjected to

biasness and malafide. What is utmost required is that the

departmental enquiry had to be conducted in accordance with

rule of natural justice. It is a basic requirement that an employee

be given reasonable opportunity of being heard of any

proceeding which may culminate in punishment being imposed

on the employee.

23. Now coming to the impugned order, this Court

does not find that the same is not a speaking and reasoned order,

rather it is based upon the enquiry report and further it has also

dealt with explanation of the petitioner with the conclusion as to

why the finding of the enquiry officer stands accepted. This

Court also does not find any infirmity in the appellate order who

precisely discussed the grounds taken by the delinquent before

affirming the order of dismissal from service. Similarly the

reviewing authority has also taken note of his submission and on

being found no cogent reason to review afore noted orders, Patna High Court CWJC No.5429 of 2020 dt.14-07-2025

rejected the review petition.

24. Reliance placed by the learned Advocate for the

Bank finds merit as the Apex Court in the case of Boloram

Bordoli (supra) has observed that if the disciplinary authority

accepts the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and passes

an order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the

order imposing punishment. The punishment is imposed based

upon the finding recorded in the enquiry report, as such, no

further elaborate reasons are required to be given by the

disciplinary authority. While examining the challenge made by

the appellant Bank Manager against his punishment of

compulsory retirement, the Apex Court in its penultimate

paragraph held that the Manager of the Bank plays a vital role in

managing the affairs of the Bank. A Bank officers/employee

deals with the public money. The nature of his work demands

vigilance with the in-built requirement to act carefully. If the

officer is right to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the

bank will disappear and will lead to erosion of public trust on

the Banks.

25. In the case in hand, it is evident from the memo

of charge and the findings of the enquiry officer that the charges

against the petitioner are grave and serious. This Court has also Patna High Court CWJC No.5429 of 2020 dt.14-07-2025

gone through the deposition of the complainant who

categorically supported the allegation of demand of gratification

and mishandling which is not only serious in nature but to

constitute a grave misconduct and unbecoming of any Bank

officer. Hence, when the bank officers commit misconduct for

his personal end and against the interest of the Bank and the

depositors, they must be dealt with iron hands and not leniently.

Accordingly, this Court does not find any infirmity in the

impugned orders. It is no defence available to say that there was

no loss or profit resulted in case, when the act of the delinquent

constitutes the misconduct and action was found to be without

authority.

26. So far the contention of the petitioner that other

officers, who have also been subjected to judicial and

disciplinary proceeding, they have been set off with lesser

punishment, also does not persuade this Court for the simple

reason, the petitioner being a Branch Head, cannot absolve from

his liability by accusing Field Officers, who have also been

punished appropriately in proportionate to his proved charges

based upon the materials available on record.

27. Before parting with the case, it would also be

relevant to take note of the fact that the impugned orders were Patna High Court CWJC No.5429 of 2020 dt.14-07-2025

came to be passed in the year 2016-17, but the present writ

petition has been filed after a delay of more than two years

without there being any cogent explanation that for the reasons

beyond his control, he could not approach the Court within a

reasonable time. In the case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy (supra) the

Court had emphasized that in a service matter/promotion matter,

the aggrieved person should approach the Court within a

reasonable period of time or at the most a year of the arising of

the cause of action, failing which the Courts may refuse to

exercise their extraordinary power under Article 226 of the

Constitution.

28. On all these counts, the writ petition lacks merit

and accordingly the same stands dismissed.

(Harish Kumar, J)

Anjani/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date            18.07.2025
Transmission Date