MANOJ KUMAR SINGH Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by way of the present writ petition, has prayed for release of salary and allowances as well as for regularization of his services w.e.f. 13.7.1999 to 24.6.2000 since he remained in judicial custody from 13.7.1999 to 24.6.2000.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the wife of the petitioner is said to have committed suicide on 6.7.1999 leading to lodging of Masrak P.S. U.D. Case No. 7 of 1999, whereafter the same was converted into a case of murder vide Masrak P.S. Case No. 152 of 1999 and the petitioner herein along with his family members was made accused in the said case for the offences under section 302 read with Section 34/120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner and his old mother were arrested in the night on 17.1999 and thereafter, the petitioner was released on bail by an order passed by this Court on 23.6.2000, whereafter the petitioner had submitted his joining before the Manager, Punjab National Bank, Murlipur, however, the petitioner was permitted to resume his duty only on 1.7.2000. The petitioner and other accused persons are said to have been acquitted of the false murder case with strong remarks against the police by a judgment dated 9.2002 passed by the learned A.D.J.-5, Chapra. The petitioner had made available a copy of the judgment of acquittal to the respondent authorities, however, the period from 13.7.1999 to 30.6.2000 was not regularized. The petitioner had filed several representations before the respondents herein and pursuant thereof, the Manager, Branch Mirzapur by his letter dated 18.11.2002, Annexure-6 to the writ petition, had written that since the petitioner was in judicial custody for the aforesaid period, there is no question of payment of any salary for the said period.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner herein had been falsely implicated in the aforementioned criminal case, hence he was precluded from attending his service during the period of his incarceration on account of no fault on his part. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for the salary for the period he had remained in custody, especially in view of the fact that he was acquitted by the trial court i.e. the original court of criminal jurisdiction.