Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan, J. 1. This letters patent appeal has been filed against the order and judgment dated 3 February, 2003 on CWJC No. 2615 of 2002; Barun Kumar V/s. Mithila Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Laheriasarai and Ors. The petitioner-appellant filed two writ petitions earlier also. These were CWJC No. 5631 of 1995 and CWJC No. 8886 of 1998. 2. The petitioner-appellant was facing three charges. These, in effect, have been noticed by the learned Judge in the second paragraph of the order, which charges were; (a) the petitioner-appellant entered into criminal conspiracy with the Field Supervisor of the Branch and absconded from 4-1-1991 to 29-1-1991 without permission of the competent authority, (b) the petitioner-appellant retained the key of the box containing cash book general register and other register of the Bank during the period of unauthorized absence, as a result of which the working of the Bank had come to standstill and (c) withdrawal by the petitioner-appellant a sum of Rs. 90,000.00 from the current account of the Bank from the Central Bank of India. 3. It is acknowledged by the Counsel for the petitioner-appellant that in these matters, the petitioner-appellant is also facing an inquiry which is being conducted by the General Bureau of Investigation. 4. The submission before the Court was to the effect that the rule of natural justice had been violated and the petitioner-appellant had not received a hearing. This aspect seems to be contradicted from the record as the learned Judge has reproduced the proceedings so recorded, wherein it is recorded by the Board of Directors that the petitioner-appellant explained his points orally but did not submit his defence in arguments and that the petitioner-appellant had been permitted three hours to present his case. On the next occasion when the Board met the petitioner-appellant chose to absent himself. 5. The petitioner-appellant apparently takes the aspect very lightly. He has not been able to explain on record with any amount of confidence on the charges which he is faced. One of them is very serious that the petitioner-appellant took upon himself to conduct business of the Bank at another premises than the schedule place and accepts that the transactions are not recorded at the Kahua Branch of which he was a Branch Manager. All these aspects are otherwise recorded by the learned Judge in the order. 6. One of them is very serious that the petitioner-appellant took upon himself to conduct business of the Bank at another premises than the schedule place and accepts that the transactions are not recorded at the Kahua Branch of which he was a Branch Manager. All these aspects are otherwise recorded by the learned Judge in the order. 6. The Court does not find any error in the order recorded on the writ petition.