PRASANNA KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the writ petitioner, Dr. Prasanna Kumar Agarwal questioned the validity of the impugned suspension order dated 17.11.8.9 being Vig/No. 629/89 issued by the General Manager (Operations) of the respondents Bank as in Annexure 3 to the petition, the related order dated 26.4.2000 [HN/ BKS] issued by the Deputy General Manager (Disciplinary authority) as in Annexure 9 to the petitiion, initiating disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner and also another office letter/order dated 19.8.2000 as in Annexure 11 to the writ petition issued by the Deputy General Manager (Disciplinary Authority) of the respcoidents Bank, informing the petitioner that his suspension will continue till the departmental action against him is concluded, by contending inter alia, that after serving more than six years as Medical Officer under the respondents/Bank, the petitioner has been placed under suspension with immediate effect in terms of Rule 50A(i) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules as the Bank authority had decided not to allow the petitioner to continue in the active service pending decision of the prosecution case filed by CBI in that regard by virtue of the impugned suspension order dated 17.11.89. But, the said criminal case was finally -disposed of on 24.4.98 toy the Court of the Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati in Special Case No. 23(c)98 thus discharging the petitioner from the charges levelled against him, but he has not been reinstated in service despite the prosecution has failed to establish a prima face case against him.

(2.) It is also the case of the petitioner, that inspite of the existence of the discharge of the petitioner from the criminal case, the respondent Bank initiated disciplinary proceedings in the year 2000 on the same and similar allegations and charges under the impugne;d order dated 26.4.2000 as in Annexure 9 to the petition by which, the petitioner has been informed to submit his written statement of defence to the charges namely, fccur charges levelled against him, even with the further information under another impugned! office letter/order dated 19.8.2000 as in Annexure 11 to the writ petition that the authority/bank respondent had decided that the suspension of the petitioner will continue till the departmental action against him is concluded.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is resisted by the respondents by filing affidavit-in- opposition and contended inter alia, that the writ petition is barred by the principle of resjudicate in view of the judgment and orde dated 27.9.96 passed by this Court in Civil Rule No. 1786/94 which was also upheld by judgment and order dated 20.8.97 passed in WA No. 515/96.