(1.) THE original petitioner namely, Ravindra Nath Tiwary has now been substituted by his legal heirs since he passed away on 6.7.2006 during the pendency of the writ application.
(2.) LATE Ravindra Nath Tiwary was working as a Special Assistant in the Ara Branch of Allahabad Bank. For certain acts of omission and commission in the year 1990 he was placed under suspension on 11.6.1990. Two charge -sheets also came to be issued against him. Respondents also in their wisdom decided to launch a criminal case on the matter and an FIR came to be instituted against him at Ara Police Station. The disciplinary authority therefore did not proceed in the departmental enquiry. The criminal trial in the matter ended in conviction vide judgment dated 19.4.1999. The original petitioner therefore was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment under different Sections of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the conviction of the petitioner, under Clause 19.6(a) of the First Bipartite Settlement, 1966 (as amended uptodate) vide order No. 8/99 dated 21.7.1999 the petitioner was dismissed from service. However, on appeal in the criminal case the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara vide judgment dated 6.2.2000 gave benefit of doubt and acquitted him. The petitioner approached the respondents armed with the order of acquittal but the respondents in their wisdom by invoking Clause 19.3(c) of the Bipartite Settlement decided to put the petitioner under deemed suspension from the date of order of dismissal i.e. 21.7.1999 and decided to proceed with the departmental enquiry on the set of charges which was served upon the petitioner after his initial suspension. The departmental enquiry was held and order of punishment dated 16.6.2003 came to be passed by the disciplinary authority. The order is, termination of service with three months ' pay and allowance in lieu of notice. The order of punishment therefore contained in Annexure -1 is under challenge in the writ application. The first contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the decision of the respondents to put the original petitioner under deemed suspension from the date of dismissal as contained in Annexure -12 is erroneous. If the original petitioner was acquitted in criminal appeal filed against his conviction he ought to have been reinstated in service, given his benefits and may be thereafter; if the respondents were still of the opinion that a departmental proceeding was necessitated and was still required then action ought to have been taken. There is an inherent legal flaw in not reinstating the petitioner and putting him under deemed suspension from the date of his dismissal i.e. 21.7.1999. If that was the position, then a subsequent action of the respondents imposing punishment must go. The petitioners by way of supplementary affidavit have brought on record the fact that a sum of Rs. 47,500/ - which was deposited by the employee with the respondent -Bank, so - called embezzled amount was ordered to be refunded by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Cr. Appeal No. 1019 of 2008 vide order dated 8.7.2008. This according to the petitioner should also weigh with the Court to absolve the delinquent, who is no more. This may help them to get such benefits as may be available to take care of the family.
(3.) RESPONDENTS submit that the petitioners have no case as the original petitioner had moved this Court on several occasions and at no point of time any relief was granted to him in the departmental enquiry. They also submit, based on the averment made in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had challenged the decision taken by the respondents to put him under deemed suspension from the date of his dismissal, as contained in Annexure -12, by filing CWJC No. 7894 of 2001 but the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 1.8.2001. That being the position it is not open to the petitioners now to challenge the validity of the decision contained in Annexure -12.