NAND KISHORE Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this letters patent appeal filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal of the Patna High Court Rules the appellant has challenged the order dated 1-10-1996 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No.2113 of 1996 (R). The appelllant is aggrieved by only that part of the order by which the learned single Judge, while holding that in the event, the Government appeal is not disposed of within four months the respondents shall withdraw the suspension order and further ordered that the respondents bank shall proceed as per Clause 521 (2) (c) of the Sastry Award.

(2.) The relevant facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: On 12-5-1980 appellant-petitioner was appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier in the State Bank of India and as such in the year 1982 he was posted in the State Bank of India, Doranda Branch, Ranchi. On 28-4-1984 a First Information Report was lodged under Sections 467, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code regarding forgery and defalcation for a sum of Rs. 4,200/-. The First Informaltion Report was lodged against unlknown. The police took up investigation and ultimately chargesheet was sublmitted against the petitioner on 31-6-85 under the aforementioned Sections of IPC on the basis of allegation made in the First Information Report. The aplpellant-petitioner was accordingly suspended on 11-1-1985 on the assumpltion that the appellant-petitioner's inlvolvement was there. The appellant-petitioner was placed under suspension in terms of Clause 521 (2) (a) of the Sastry Award. It is stated that although appellant-petitioner was suspended as far back as on 11-V1985 but no charlgesheet was issued against the appelllant-petitioner and he remained under suspension for a long time without initaition of any departmental proceeding. In the year 1989 the appellant-petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case and thereafter, the appellant made several representation before the respondent No. 2, the Regional Manager State Bank of India for revokling the order of suspension on the ground that he was acquitted from the criminal case, but the authorities of the State Bank of India sat tight over his case and did not withdraw the suspension order. The appellant petitioner, therefore, moved this Court by filing the aforementioned CWJC No. 2113 of 1996 (R).

(3.) In the said writ application the respondents-Bank tried to justify the order of suspension on the ground, inter alia, that against the order of acquittal, special leave application was filed by the Government which was allowed and government appeal is now pending against the judgment of acquittal and f.n that view of the matter, the appeal being continuation of the criminal proceeding the suspension order was not revoked. The learned single Judge after considerling all the facts and relevant provisions of Sastry Award came to a finding that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for an indefinite period only because of the fact that government appeal which was filed in the year 1989 has not been disposed of for last seven years. The learned single Judge, therefore, directed the office of the High Court to put up Government appeal before an aplpropriate Bench for disposal within four months and ordered that if the same is not disposed within the said time, respondents shall withdraw the suspenlsion order. At the same time the learned single Judge further directed the respondent-bank to proceed as per Clause 521 (2) (c) of the Sastry Award for doing needful. The operative porltion of the judgment and order of the learned single Judge is reproduced hereinbelow:-