RAMESH PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the order dated 26.11.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Review No. 35/2008, by which the review petition was dismissed on the ground that the order passed in the writ petition, against which the review petition was filed, was an order passed with the consent of the counsel appearing for the petitioner, who had agreed to withdraw the writ petition since the relief with regard to the claim of back wages was partially granted to the petitioner.

(2.) TO explain the controversy, the salient facts which may be essential for disposal of this appeal, are to the following effect: '' The petitioner was dismissed from service on the charge that he had income disproportionate to his known sources and he was conducting business in the name of his wife, while discharging duties as a Guard in the respondent - State Bank of India. In view of the charge, which was found to have been established, an order of dismissal was passed, which he had assailed by way of a writ petition. The writ petition was allowed and the order of dismissal was set aside, against which an appeal was preferred by the respondent -Bank and the matter was remanded by the Appellate Court to the appellate authority being the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority, after considering the matter, set aside the order of dismissal but did not grant back - wages to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed another writ petition against the denial of back -wages before the learned Single Judge Claiming back -wages. The said writ petition was dismissed with a clarification that the petitioner will be deemed to have remained under suspension between the dates of his dismissal till the date of his reinstatement which meant that he will be. paid 50% of the back wages equivalent to subsistence allowance for the said period treating him under suspension. This order was passed with consent of the counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Rita Kumari, and it was recorded that the petitioner is satisfied with the said clarification and she may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition. Curiously, the petitioner thereafter filed a review petition and challenged the aforesaid order stating therein that the withdrawal of the writ petition by his counsel was improper and breach of faith as the same should not have been withdrawn since he had not' given his consent foregoing the back -wages which was denied by the disciplinary authority. However, the review petition was dismissed. Hence, this appeal has been preferred against the order passed in the review petition dismissing the same under the aforesaid circumstance.

(3.) WE , however, do not feel persuaded to accept this submission that even though the counsel had withdrawn the writ petition after partial relief was granted to the petitioner and he was entitled to 50% of back wages by treating the period of his dismissal as period under suspension, review should have been entertained on the ground that the same was accepted by the counsel without proper instruction from his client, i.e. the petitioner/appellant herein.