REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10180 OF 2018

(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 4565 of 2018)  

The Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank & Ors.            ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Narendra Kumar Sinha ….Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10182­10183 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 27063­27064 of 2018)

(D.No.31240 of 2018)

Narendra Kumar Sinha            ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

The Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank & Ors. ….Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Leave granted in both the S.L.Ps.

1

In  Civil  Appeal  No…………of 2018 @ S.L.P.(c)  No. 4565/2018

1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment

and order dated 30.11.2017 passed by the High Court

of Judicature at Patna in L.P.A. No.96 of 2015 whereby

the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the

appeal filed by the appellant­Bank and while modifying

the order of the Single Judge dated 26.09.2014 in

C.W.J.C. No.25672 of 2013 remanded the case to the

Disciplinary Authority for fresh consideration.  

2. Few facts need mention hereinbelow for the

disposal of the appeal, which involves a short point.

3. The respondent­Narendra  Kumar  Sinha  was in

the employment of the appellant­Bank. The appellant­

Bank, by order dated 16.04.2011, dismissed the

respondent­employee on 3 charges on the basis of the

misconduct committed by him in performance of

official  duties  after  holding  departmental enquiry  as

2

per the Service Rules. In the departmental enquiry, all

the 3 charges stood proved against the respondent.  

4. The respondent felt aggrieved and filed

departmental appeal before the Appellate Authority as

prescribed under the service rules. The Appellate

Authority,  by order dated 13.01.2012, dismissed the

said  appeal.  The  respondent felt  aggrieved  and filed

writ petition (CWJC No.6915/2012) in the High Court

of Patna and questioned the legality and correctness of

his dismissal order and the Appellate Authority's

order.  

5. The Single  Judge,  by order  dated 18.10.2012,

allowed the writ petition, set aside the Appellate

Authority's order and remanded the case to the

Appellate Authority for fresh consideration.  

6. On remand, the Appellate Authority, by order

dated 06.07.2013, dismissed the respondent’s appeal

and affirmed the dismissal order. The respondent felt

3

aggrieved and again filed writ petition (CWJC

25672/2013). The Single Judge, by order dated

26.09.2014 held that charge No. 2 is not proved and

without expressing any opinion on charge Nos. 1 & 3

again remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority

for rehearing on charge Nos. 1 and 3. The Single Judge

also proceeded to set aside the order of dismissal.  

7.  The appellant­Bank felt aggrieved by the order of

the Single Judge and filed Letters Patent Appeal No.

96/2015 before the Division Bench whereas the

respondent (employee) also felt aggrieved by the order

of the  Single  Judge  and filed  Letters  Patent  Appeal

No.764/2015. The Division Bench disposed of both the

appeals by common impugned order.

8. The Division Bench, by impugned order,

dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant­Bank and

while modifying the order of the Single Judge held that

the Single Judge instead of remanding the case to the

4

Appellate  Authority  should  have remanded  it to the

Disciplinary Authority for fresh decision.  Accordingly,

the Division Bench remanded the case to the

Disciplinary Authority.  

9. It is against this decision of the Division Bench,

the Bank has felt  aggrieved and filed this appeal by

way of special leave in this Court.

10.    Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned senior counsel

for the appellant­Bank and Mr. Vinay Navare, learned

counsel for the respondent­Employee.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and on perusal of the record of the case, we are

inclined to set aside the impugned order as also the

order of the Single Judge and remand the case to the

Single Judge for deciding the writ petition on merits.

12. In our considered opinion, the Single Judge erred

in remanding the case to the Appellate Authority. It is

for the reason that the Single Judge confined his

5

examination only to charge No. 2 and held the same as

not proved whereas he failed to examine the case so

far as charge Nos. 1 and 3 are concerned.  

13. It should have been seen that so far as charge

Nos.  1 and 3 are concerned,  both were held proved

against the employee in the departmental enquiry.  

14. In these circumstances, the Single Judge  was

under legal obligation to examine each charge

independently and then he should have recorded his

findings on all the charges in accordance with law. It

was, however, not done.

15. So far as the Division Bench is concerned, they

having noticed the aforesaid error committed by the

Single Judge instead of rectifying the same yet

committed another error by remanding the case to the

disciplinary authority  instead of  remanding  it to the

Single Judge for deciding the writ petition on merits.

Remand of the case  to disciplinary authority  by  the

6

Division Bench in the facts of this case, in our view,

was, therefore, unjustified in the light of reasons

mentioned above.  

16. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the

reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the Single

Judge and also the Division Bench due to the

aforementioned reasons and, therefore, set aside both

the orders.

17. The appeal filed by the appellant­Bank thus

succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Impugned order

and the order of the Single Judge are hereby set aside.

The  writ  petition (C.W.J.C.  No.25672/2013) filed  by

the respondent­employee is accordingly restored to its

original file.

7

18. The Single Judge will now decide the writ petition

on merits in accordance with law uninfluenced by any

observations made earlier by the Single Judge and the

Division Bench in their respective orders passed earlier

and also by this Court.

19. Since the  matter is quite old, we request the

Single Judge to decide the writ petition as

expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of

six months.

In C.A. Nos.……..of 2018    @S.L.P(c)Nos  .………of 2018 (D.No.31240 of 2018)

These appeals are directed against the final

judgment and order dated 30.11.2017 passed by the

High Court of Judicature at Patna in L.P.A. Nos. 96 &

764 of  2015 whereby  the  High Court  dismissed  the

appeal  filed by the respondent­Bank and the appeal

filed by the appellant­employee herein.

8

In view of the detailed order passed above in C.A.

arising of S.L.P.(c) No.4565 of 2018 filed by the Bank,

these appeals stand disposed of.   

                           …...……..................................J.

          [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

  ………...................................J.     [UDAY UMESH LALIT]

New Delhi; October 03, 2018  

9