N SURAMANIAN Vs. INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the above writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the concerned records from the third respondent and quash the order No.PZO:PRNL:162:99 dated 12.2.1999 issued by the third respondent and consequently direct the respondents to consider and promote the petitioner from JMG-I to MMG Scale-II with effect from 27.10.92, when he became eligible and on par with his immediate junior Mr.S.Ganesan SR 14126 and grant all consequential benefits thereon, interest on backwages due at the rate of 12% per annum.

(2.) The petitioner was employed in the Indian Bank. He was holding the post of Scale 1 Officer. There is a selection post from Scale 1 Officer to Scale 2 Officer. He was promoted to Scale 1 Officer on 22.10.1982. He was eligible to be considered for promotion under Scale 2 Officer in the year 1989. While so, on 25.10.1988 he was suspended on the ground that his wife filed a police complaint against him under the Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, he was under suspension for more than six and half years. On 13.1.1995 the suspension was revoked, that is, even before the disposal of the criminal case. By order dated 4.7.1998, the period of suspension was treated as duty. On 2.11.1989, the Bank paid entire salary due to him. In the meanwhile, in 1992 to 1995, there was promotions from Scale 1 to Scale 2 grade. Since this petitioner was also eligible for promotion, he was permitted to write written examination. But thereafter, he was not selected. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come forward with the above said writ petition.

(3.) According to the promotional policy out of 125 marks, 25 marks were allotted to written examination, 10 marks for professional qualification, 40 marks for performance and 50 marks for role functioning and exposure. This performance was to be considered on the basis of the three years service. The case of the petitioner is that no marks were awarded for performance and also for role functioning and exposure. The petitioner has served for two years in Rural Branches and he was also transferred to northern zone. He served in New Delhi in the foreign exchange department for four and half years. Therefore, this should have been taken into account in giving marks for role functioning and exposure. Since he was kept under suspension for six and half years, he could not serve in the bank for immediate preceding three years. Therefore, his performance for the last three years, while he was in service, should have been considered. But that was not considered and he was denied promotion. In the meanwhile, in the year 2001 the petitioner has voluntarily retired from service without prejudice to the pendency of the writ petition. As the petitioner has already been voluntarily retired from service, he is not claiming any backwages and only deemed promotion for grant of pension. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the criminal case which was pending against him has ended in acquittal as the case was "not proved" against him. In that case, the petitioner was honourably acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt; that is he did not commit any criminal offence. He was kept under suspension only due to false complaint preferred against him by his wife. Moreover, the Appellate Court acquitted him, though the trial court convicted him. As such, it is clear that he was not suspended for any other criminal offence. Further no departmental enquiry was initiated against him. Under the above circumstances, his promotion for the period of 1992 and 1995 should have been considered.