JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard through video conferencing.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent Bank submit that the respondent Nos. 1 i.e. Vananchal Gramin Bank has been merged to Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank having its head office at Ranchi.

3. In view of the specific statement made at Bar by the learned counsel for the Respondent Bank, let “Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank” be impleaded as party respondent No. 5. Looking to the present situation due to COVID-19 the registry is directed to implead “Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank” as party respondent No. 5.

4. It is pertinent to mention here that the order for correction /amendment in the writ application is made with consent of both the parties and now the main application is taken up for the hearing.

5. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 11.07.2007 and 10.09.2005 as well as 24.07.2009, whereby the petitioner has been punished under clause 38 of the Santhal Pargana Gramin Bank Employee Regulation, 2001.

6. The petitioner had earlier moved before this Court in W.P. (S) No. 6091 of 2007 challenging the order dated 10.09.2005, whereby the petitioner was punished under the provision of Clause 38 of the Santhal Pargana Gramin Bank Regulation (herein after referred as Regulation). The said writ application was disposed of by remitting the matter back as contemplated under rule 48 of the Regulation 2001 to hear the appeal afresh on its own merit after giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The operative portion of the order is quoted herein-below:

“Be that as it may, since the matter was not disposed of on merits, it will be in the interest of justice to remit the matter back as contemplated under Rule 48 of Santhal Pargana Gramin Bank Officers and Employees Regulation, 2001 to hear the appeal afresh preferred by the petitioner on its own merit after giving an opportunity of hearing. It is also directed that the appeal should be disposed of preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

7. Pursuant to the said order, the appeal was decided against the petitioner vide order dated 24.07.2009 which is Annexure-1 to the instant writ application.

8. The short question involve in this case is that the appellate authority without appreciating the contention raised by the petitioner has upheld the order of punishment. Learned counsel contended that no reason whatsoever has been given by the appellate authority. As such, the aforesaid order is devoid of merit and fit to be quashed on the sole ground that it has been passed with non application of mind.

9. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case wherein the respondent authorities have supported the impugned order and taken a specific plea of delay and latches.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the instant petition has been filed with much delay inasmuch as the appellate order is dated 24.07.2009 and no reason has been stated in the writ application for waiting for almost 3 years and then filing the instant writ application. As such, the instant writ application should be dismissed on this ground alone.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent further submit that now the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has been merged to Jharkhand Gramin Bank having its head office at Ranchi which has been impleaded as respondent No. 5 in the instant case. He fairly submits that though the order is not well reasoned but the facts of the case is that the allegation as against the petitioner was well proved by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority after giving him show cause notice awarded the punishment.

12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record it appears that no reason, whatsoever, has been assigned in the appellate order. For brevity, the operative portion of the appellate order is quoted herein-below:

“The Appellate Authority has gone through the ch