ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK LTD Vs. SHANKAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the appellate order, passed by Board of Revenue, on 22.8.97 in an appeal, preferred by petitioner under S. 77(2) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short the Act).

(2.) BRIEF facts, material for deciding the said petition, are mentioned hereinbelow. Respondent No. 1 was working with the petitioners' Bank on the post of Samiti Sewak. On account of certain alleged irregularities and illegalities committed by this employee, after holding a departmental enquiry, his services were terminated by an order dated 1.5.81.RespondentNo. 1 was also prosecuted for commission of certain criminal offences by a criminal Court of JMFC Sitamau. However, he was exonerated of the criminal charge levelled against him by giving benefit of doubt. On pronouncement of the judgment of acquittal, in his favour he requested the petitioners to take him back in service. The petitioners did not oblige the respondent employee mainly on the ground that pursuant to the departmental enquiry held against him, in which charges were found to have been proved, his services stood terminated in the year 1981 itself, whereas the employee never challenged the order of termination by raising a dispute under S. 55(2) of the Act. According to them acquittal of respondent employee of a criminal charge would not entitle him to be taken back in service as the order of termination passed by petitioners, pursuant to the findings recorded by departmental enquiry, would still come in his way for giving the said benefit to him.

(3.) IT was further contended that both orders were separate in nature inasmuch as the first order of termination was passed on account of proved charges against him whereas the order of acquittal has been passed by a Criminal Court but that alone would not be sufficient to reinstate the petitioner. Parties led evidence before the Deputy Registrar. On appreciation of the evidence available on record, Deputy Registrar directed that the matter be remanded to the Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration of the same as according to him the said order of dismissal came to be passed without affording any opportunity of hearing. However, the order of dismissal passed against the respondent No. 1 was not quashed. This order was subject matter of challenge in an appeal preferred by respondent No. 1 employee under 77(1) of the Act before the Joint Registrar. The Joint Registrar in the appeal held that since the employee stood acquitted by a criminal Court, therefore, he would be entitled for his reinstatement but he also did not quash the first order of termination which was passed against respondent No. 1, before the judgment of the criminal Court was passed in his favour. It was further held that employee would not be entitled for any backwages on the principles of 'no work no pay'.