MD. SHAHJAHAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed against the order declining full pay and allowances during the period in which, allegedly, the petitioner was wrongly kept out of service. The petitioner was an employee of the State Bank of India having joined the bank on 18/1/1989. The petitioner's wife had initiated a criminal proceeding under Sec. 498(A) I.P.C. pursuant to which the petitioner was arrested by the Police and detained in custody between 22/11/2003 to 15/1/2004. The petitioner was released on bail on 15/1/2004 on which date itself the petitioner was suspended as per Annexure-1. The petitioner represented with Annexure-2, contending that the case filed by his wife was false and that he had reported for duty on 17/1/2004, from which date he has been working in the Bank's service. It was also pointed out that the Fast Track Promotion Test was to be held on 8/2/2004, in which he was eligible to participate. The petitioner also requested that he be allowed to continue, till the charge-sheet is filed, and permitted to appear in the promotion test. The Bank declined his request by Annexure-3. The petitioner, by Annexure-4, sought for subsistence allowance which, this Court is informed, has been paid. Later, by Annexure-5 dtd. 2/6/2006, the Bank considered the representations and the relevant papers produced and taking into account the fact that the conclusion of criminal proceedings would take some time, the suspension was revoked and the petitioner was taken back in service. When the petitioner sought for the full pay and allowances for the suspension period, it was communicated by Annexure-5 series that the manner in which the period of suspension is to be treated will depend upon the outcome of the criminal case.

(2.) The petitioner challenged the said action of the Bank by writ petition numbered as C.W.J.C. No. 13721 of 2009. The aspect of how the suspension period was to be treated was left to be considered after conclusion of the criminal proceedings, as per Annexure-6 judgment. An intra Court appeal was unsuccessful and a review filed also stood rejected. The petitioner was acquitted of the criminal charges by Annexure-A judgment, produced along with the counter affidavit on 14/3/2011. The petitioner by Annexure-7 based on the judgment of the criminal Court and his acquittal, sought for restoration of all the benefits during the period he was placed under suspension. The Bank rejected the representation as per Annexure-8.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner argued for restoration of the entire period of suspension as period spent on duty; especially when there was no ground for suspending the employee. It was also pointed out that the acquittal of the employee gave him a right to seek for such restoration and also the consequential benefits that flow from such restoration. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank emphasized that there was no honourable acquittal granted to the petitioner. The decision of the Madras High Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. HA Munaf 2002 (I LLJ 66) 2002 was also relied on. It was argued that when a person is acquitted on the ground that the charge was not proved beyond all reasonable doubt, it cannot be held that the person was honourably acquitted or that he was given a clean chit of the charges levelled against him.