V. Prasanthan v. Punjab National Bank & Ors.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **THURSDAY ,THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 37206 of 2017** ## **PETITIONER:** **V. PRASANTHAN HEAD CASHIER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,Q.S ROAD, CHINNAKKADA BRANCH,KOLLAM - 691 001.** **BY ADVS. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ KUM.A.ARUNA KUM.THULASI K. RAJ** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN ANDMANAGING**| ||**DIRECTOR,PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,**| ||**NEW DELHI - 110 001.**| |**2**|**THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER HRD**| ||**CIRCLE OFFICE, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,**| ||**ERNAKULAM - 682 018.**| |**3**|**THE BRANCH MANAGER**| ||**PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,Q.S ROAD,**| ||**CHINNAKKADA BRANCH,KOLLAM - 691 001.**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.C.A.MAJEED**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.03.2019, THE COURT ON 21.03.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C).No.37206/17 2 ## **JUDGMENT** ## 1.This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- “i) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P5 only to the extent to which it denies reinstatement to the petitioner back in service with effect from 20.9.2008 with full back wages, allowances and other service benefits as unjust, illegal and unsustainable. ii)To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P1 and P2 as unjust illegal and arbitrary. iii)To declare that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service with effect from 20.9.2008 with full back wages, allowances and other service benefits; iv)To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to modify Ext.P5 by cancelling Exts.P1 and P2 and reinstating the petitioner back in service with effect from 20.9.2008 with full backwages, allowances and othe service benefits; v)To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to disburse salary and other allowances to the petitioner with effect from 20.9.2008.” - 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. Petitioner, who was working as Head Cashier in the 1[st] respondent bank was dismissed from service by Exhibit P2 proceedings dated 9.2.2009 on the ground of his conviction in W.P.(C).No.37206/17 3 C.P.No.46/2003 in the court of the Additional Sessions JudgeII, Mavelikkara. No disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner and Exhibit P1 order of suspension as well as Exhibit P2 order of dismissal were passed solely on the conviction by the criminal court. By Exhibit P3 common judgment dated 29.09.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.2705/2008 and connected cases, the conviction by the Addl.Sessions Court II Mavelikkara was set aside and the petitioner, who was the 1[st] accused, was acquitted. The petitioner preferred Exhibit P4 representation seeking revocation of order of dismissal, relying on Exhibit P3 judgment. However, Exhibit P5 proceedings were issued stating that the conviction has been set aside by the appellate court giving the petitioner the benefit of doubt and a decision has therefore been taken to reinstate the petitioner in service as Head Cashier without backwages w.e.f. 07.12.2016, the date of his representation. He was directed to remit the gratuity and PF amounts drawn by him with interest. The petitioner submits that he has refunded the amounts of gratuity and PF amounts with interest, as directed and had W.P.(C).No.37206/17 4 rejoined the service of the bank. However, it is contended that the decision to reinstate the petitioner without any service benefits and without backwages and only with effect from the date of Exhibit P4 representation is completely unwarranted, in view of the fact that the acquittal of the petitioner by Exhibit P3 judgment is clearly an honourable acquittal. 4. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in **Reserve Bank Of India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh Panchal** [(1994) 1 SCC 541], it is contended that the effect of the judgment is to be gathered from a reading of the entire judgment and should not be deduced from singular words contained in the same. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in **Joginder Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others** [(2015) 2 SCC 377], it is contended that when acquittal is an honourable one, the respondents cannot deny the benefits of reinstatement with effect from the date of dismissal. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the dismissal of the petitioner was solely on account of his conviction by the criminal court. It is, therefore, contended that the respondents were duty bound to W.P.(C).No.37206/17 5 examine the judgment of this Court which acquitted the petitioner. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a plain reading of Exhibit P3 would go to show that the petitioner has been afforded an honourable acquittal. If that be so, it is contended that the denial of entire benefits due to the petitioner and reinstating him only with effect from the date of Ext.P4 representation, that too without any backwages, is completely unjustified. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also rely on the decisions of the Apex Court in **M/s.Hindustan Tin Works Pvt.Ltd v. The Employees of M/s.Hindustan Tin Works Pvt.Ltd. and others** [1979 KHC 520] and **Hindustan Motors Ltd v. Tapan Kumar Battacharya** [AIR 2002 (2) SC 2676] to contend that the entitlement to any quantum of backwages has to be considered by the appropriate authority, taking note of the factual circumstance of each case. The decision of the High Court of Delhi, relying on the provisions of Punjab National Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977, in **Inderjit Singh v. Punjab National** W.P.(C).No.37206/17 6 **Bank** (W.P.(C).No.1559 of 2008) is also relied on to contend that the judgment of acquittal has to be considered and the authorities have to consider whether in the given facts the employee is entitled to backwages or not. The order disentitling the backwages was set aside in that case and the employee was held entitled to full pay and allowance, subject to adjustment of subsistence allowance paid to him. 6.A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by the respondents. It is contended that the dismissal of employee was on account of the conviction in the criminal case by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mavelikkara. It is stated that the petitioner has been reinstated in service pursuant to Exhibit P3 judgment. It is stated that the question of backwages is to be considered by the respondents, taking note of the findings of the Court. It is contended that in view of Exhibit P3 judgment, respondents found that the acquittal was giving the petitioner the benefit of the doubt and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to backwages. W.P.(C).No.37206/17 7 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would rely on the provisions of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977. It is contended that the said Regulations provide for special procedure in cases of conviction on a criminal charge. It is stated that there is no provision contained in the Regulations for automatic reinstatement of the employee with backwages on the conviction being set aside and the employee being found not guilty. It is further contended that Exhibit P3 judgment only finds that the prosecution could not succeed in proving the true genesis of the incident as alleged in the charges and that the conviction and sentence of accused Nos.1,6 and 7 cannot therefore be sustained. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner cannot claim a complete exoneration and an automatic reinstatement with backwages in the facts and circumstances of this case. 8. I have considered the contentions advanced. Exhibit P3 considered the entire evidence adduced as against the respondents. There is a finding in Exhibit P3 that, an incident, W.P.(C).No.37206/17 8 as alleged, had occurred. With regard to appellants in the three appeals which were considered in Exhibit P3 judgment that is Accused Nos.1,6 and 7, the finding was that the prosecution could not succeed in proving the true genesis of the incidents, as alleged in the charge and that the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused could not be sustained. The conviction was therefore set aside and the accused were acquitted. The question whether the acquittal is an honourable one or not is a matter which is to be considered by the authority while reinstating the petitioner in service. The petitioner has been reinstated only with effect from the date of the representation by which the entire period from 4.10.2008 to 07.12.2016 stands completely effaced from the service records by the action of the respondents. Though it is true that the grant of backwages is not automatic on the conviction being set aside, I am of the opinion that the issue whether the petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement from the date of suspension or at least with effect from the date of Exhibit P3 judgment and whether he will be entitled to backwages from such date is a matter which has to receive the W.P.(C).No.37206/17 9 attention of the respondents. In case the petitioner files a representation before the respondents seeking a reconsideration of the issue of reinstatement with effect from anterior date and the payment of backwages with effect from such date, the respondents shall take up the representation, consider and pass a speaking order on the same, after hearing the petitioner also, taking note of the specific findings in Exhibit P3 and the contention of the petitioner that Exhibit P3 amounts to an honourable acquittal. Orders shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of submission of the representation by the petitioner, as directed. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of Exhibit P3 and any other documents to be relied upon before the respondents within a period of three weeks from today. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. **Anu Sivaraman, Judge** sj W.P.(C).No.37206/17 10 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 01.10.2008 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER, HARIPPAD BRANCH OF PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.2.2009. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.9.2016 IN CR.APPEAL NO. 2705/2008. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06.12.2016. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.4.2017. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPOUND TRANSFER VOUCHER DATED 15.5.2017.** True copy PS to Judge