VINOD KUMAR MALIK Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises in this Petition is whether the Petitioner is entitled to payment of wages/salary for the period commencing on 07.07.1999 which is the date of the termination of his services predicated of his conviction under Section 148-A, IPC and ending on 3.10.2001 when Petitioner joined duties. On 28.7.2001 he had been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Respondent Bank states that the Bank is statutorily bound to terminate the services of any of its employees who has been convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude, as per Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore vs. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat) and another, (1996) 11 SCC 603 where the Court observed as follows:

(3.) The reinstatement of the petitioner into the service has already been ordered by the High Court. The only question is whether he is entitled to back wages. It was his conduct of involving himself in the crime that was taken into account for his not being in service of the respondent. Consequent upon his acquittal, he is entitled to reinstatement for the reason that his service was terminated on the basis of the conviction by operation of proviso to the statutory rules applicable to the situation. The question of back wages would be considered only if the respondents have taken action by way of disciplinary proceedings and the action was found to be unsustainable in law and he was unlawfully prevented from discharging the duties. In that context, his conduct becomes relevant. Each case requires to be considered in its own backdrop. In this case, since the petitioner had involved himself in a crime, though he was later acquitted, he had disabled himself from rendering the service on account of conviction and incarceration in jail. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to payment of back wages. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have not committed any error of law warranting interference. In Union of India and others vs. Jaipal Singh, (2004) 1 SCC 121, the Apex Court took note of the observations in Ranchhodji's case (supra) and opined as follows: