PRAMOD THAKUR Vs. PALAMAU KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The grievances of the petitioner is that the respondents have not taken any decision despite his repeated representations for release of full salary for the period of his suspension from 23.8.1991 to 14.6.1995 in view of the Rule 29(2)(b) of Palamau Kshetriya Gramin Bank Staff Service Regulation, 1980 as also the regulation of 2001, even though the petitioner has been acquitted of all the criminal charges by the concerned Trial Court vide judgment dated 23.7.2004 annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Rule 29 of 2001 regulation which is at Annexure-11/1 is quoted herein below:-

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are obliged to follow the provisions of Regulation of 2001 applicable to the Bank which have been notified upon the approval of the Central Government and the circular which are operative cannot be said to override the Regulation which have higher legal force.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent-Bank on the other hand submits that the suspension relates to the period from 1991 to 1995 which was revoked by the respondent themselves on 14.6.1995 after the petitioner made an application upon his release on bail on 23.8.1991. The petitioner's representations are contained at Annexure-7 dated 17.8.2004, Annexure-8 dated 30.11.2005, Annexure 8/1 dated 8.12.2004, Annexure-10 dated 14.2.2006 and Annexure-10/1 dated 10.5.2006.