Disposed

Braja Gopal Sinha v. State Bank of India and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Nov 2021WP(C)/5995/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a writ petition challenging a punishment order and appellate dismissal, permitted a 20-day delay in filing a review petition by invoking the principle of condonation of delay. The matter was remanded to the reviewing authority to decide afresh within three months.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 20 days condoned; matter remanded to reviewing authority to decide afresh within three months.

Braja Gopal Sinha Vs State Bank of India and 4 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010128262014

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/5995/2014

¶5

BRAJA GOPAL SINHA

¶6

S/O LT. PYARI MOHAN SINHA, R/O H/NO.68, W/NO.25, VIVEKANANDA ROAD, SILCHAR-7, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

STATE BANK OF INDIA and 4 ORS REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MADAME CAME ROAD, MUMBAI-21

¶9

2:CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER CUM APPELLATE AUTHORITY SBI LOCAL HEAD OFFICE P.O. ASSAM SACHIVALAYA DISPUR GHY-6 3:THE GENERAL MANAGER NETWORK-II AND APPOINTING AUTHORITY LOCAL HEAD OFFICE P.O. ASSAM SACHIVALAYA DISPUR GHY-6 4:DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY and DY. GENERAL MANAGER OandC NETWORK-I LOCAL HEAD OFFICE NORTH EASTERN CIRCLE G.S. ROAD P.O. ASSAM SACHIVALAYA DISPUR GHY-6 5:DY. GENERAL MANAGER ADMN SBI

¶10

Page No.# 2/3

¶11

ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT JORHAT M.G.ROAD JORHAT ASSA

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S K GHOSH

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : MS.L SHARMAR-1

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 11.11.2021

¶17

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 23.1.2013 whereby the petitioner was awarded with “reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay by two stages till retirement, with cumulative effect”. On appeal such order was also dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 11.5. 2013. The order of appellate Authority is also under challenge. Before entering into the merit and sustainability of aforesaid orders the counsel for the petitioners makes a submission that pursuant to the order of the Appellate authority, the petitioner preferred a review before the authority but the said review order was dismissed on the ground of delay without entering into the merit vide order dated 9.5.2014.

¶18

Mr. Ghosh, submits that the said order of dismissal of the review was served upon the petitioner on 13.6.2013, though the order was passed on 14.5.2013.

¶19

As per the extant Rule of the Bank the period of limitation is six months from the date of the order of the appellate authority. According to Mr. Ghosh, if in the case in hand, from the date of order of appellate authority, there is a

¶20

Page No.# 3/3

¶21

delay of 20 days in filing the Review petition whereas from the date of receipt of the order by the petitioner, there is no delay. As such he submits that the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is given to the authority to take the review on record and pass necessary order by condoning the delay.

¶22

Mr.S. S. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel in his usual fairness submits that, he will have no objection if the matter is remanded back to the reviewing authority for deciding afresh by condoning the delay.

¶23

In view of such concession and in the interest of justice the delay of 20 days in preferring the review is condoned and the matter is remanded back to the authority to decide afresh in accordance with law, the review pending before it, within a period of three months.

¶24

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶25

No order as to cost.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

Braja Gopal Sinha v. State Bank of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Braja Gopal Sinha v. State Bank of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asma Khatun and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Binoy Kumar Yadav and 8 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

MD Hussain Ahmed and 21 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

JC-361505L Naib Subedar/Clerk Giasuddin Ahmed Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Shanku Chanda Vs State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Ms Rupa Bora and 8 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.