BHIMSEN GOCHHAYAT Vs. REGIONAL MANAGER BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER's grievance in this application is that notwithstanding the order of acquittal passed by a Criminal Court his employers initiated departmental proceeding, and have passed an order of dismissal. The said order is under challenge before the appellate authority.

(2.) BACKGROUND facts, as presented by petitioner, shorn of unnecessary details are as follows : Petitioner was appointed as a part-time sweeper of Bank of India, a Nationalised Bank, at Rasta Branch on June 22, 1978, and was promoted and appointed as Daftary of Balasore Branch, In view of pendency of a criminal case, C. R. Case No. 1049 of 1982 corresponding to trial case No. 309 of 1987 in the Centre of Judicial Magistrate, first class, Balasore, for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 468, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'ipc') he was placed under suspension. He was convicted by the learned JMPC on August 26, 1987 for the offence punishable under Section 468, IPC. In view of such conviction, he was dismissed from service with effect from August 26, 1987. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balasore allowed the petitioner's appeal and set aside the conviction in Criminal Appeal No. 60/ 84 of 1988/87 vide judgment dated March 14, 1989. Petitioner moved the employer for reinstatement with all consequential benefits. In view of the judgment of acquittal, the authorities withdrew the order of dismissal with effect from August 26, 1987 by order dated July 31, 1989, but directed the petitioner to continue under suspension. In the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from October 23, 1989. He has preferred an appeal on June 22, 1991 which is undisputedly pending.

(3.) PETITIONER's grievance is two fold. Firstly, it is submitted that in view of the order of acquittal, he is entitled to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. Secondly, the order of dismissal with effect from August 26, 1987 having been withdrawn, the order of suspension could not have been made operative from August 26, 1987. Opposite parties have acted illegally to deny the benefits to the petitioner, it is additionally submitted that the appeal which was filed more than four years back should have been disposed of expeditiously. Mr. G. A. R. Dora, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1, submitted that the acquittal was on a technical ground and was not an honourable acquittal. According to him, even in the case of honourable acquittal, the departmental proceeding can be continued. It is submitted that on account of pendency of present writ application, the appeal filed by the petitioner has not been disposed of.