GENERAL MANAGER, UCO BANK & ANR. versus M. VENURANGANATH

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 367 · Decided: 12-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

·• 1 
GENERAL MANAGER, UCO BANK & ANR. 
A 
.:4 
v. 
M. VENURANGANATH 
,. 
DECEMBER 12, 2007 
B 
[DR.ARIJITPASAYAT ANDAFTABALAM,JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Bank-Disciplinary proceedings-Respondent, Branch Manager c 
in appellant No.1-Bank, tried for offences under !PC and Prevention 
of Corruption Act-But given benefit of doubt by Court and 
acquitted-Subsequently, Respondent, who meanwhile had been under 
suspension, was reinstated-After reinstatement, departmental 
proceedings initiated in which Respondent found guilty-He was held D 
not entitled to salary and allowances and other attendant benefits 
including increment for period under suspension-Respondent filed writ 
petition claiming pay and allowances for period of suspension-Claim 
allowed by High Court--Held: Clause 22(8) of the Disciplinary Manual 
governed the case of Respondent-High Court justified in holding that E· 
because of Clause 22(8), Respondent was entitled to all benefits to 
which he would have been normally entitled, had he been on duty-
Manual on Disciplinary Action and Related Matters of UCO Bank-
~-- i 
Clause 22(8)-United Commercial Bank (Conduct, Discipline and 
Appeal) Regulation, 1976-Regulations 12 & 15. 
F 
Respondent, Branch Manager in Appellant No.1-bank, was tried 
for offences under ss.120-B, 471 and 477 of the IPC ands. 5(2) r/w s.5(1) 
(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, but given benefit of doubt 
by the Court and acquitted. Subsequently, Respondent, who meanwhile 
had been under suspension, was reinstated. After re-instatement, G 
~t 
departmental proceedings were initiated against Respondent, in which 
he was found guilty. Respondent was held not entitled to any payment 
of salary, and allowances and other attendant benefits including 
367 
H 
368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. 
A increment for the period under suspension. He filed writ petition. High 
.~
• 
Court directed grant of pay and allowances for the period of suspension 
" 
~-
on basis of Clause 22(8) of the "Manual on Disciplinary Action and 
Related Matters of UCO Bank." Hence the present appeal. 
" 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Regulation 12 of the United Commercial Bank 
(Conduct and Disciplinary appeal) Regulation, 1976 showed that 
suspension can be directed under two circumstances. The first is where 
a disciplinary proceeding against the concerned employee is 
c contemplated or is pending; and the second is where a case against him 
in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or triaL 
The respondent was placed under suspension under Regulation 12(i)(b ). 
[Para 8) (373-G-H; 374-A] 
1.2. Regulation 15 deals with two types of situations; pay and 
D allowances and treatment of service on termination or suspension. Sub-
~ 
Regulation (1) deals with the power of competent authority on completion 
of the departmental enquiry. In all other cases, except those covered 
by Sub-Regulation (1 ), the competent authority has to direct as regards 
the proportion of pay and allowances to be granted. A close reading of 
E Sub-Regulation (1) of Regulation 15 would show that the same is 
relatable to departmental proceedings. While other cases, meaning, 
cases not covered by departmental proceedings, which obviously would 
include the criminal trial are covered by sub-regulation (2). 
[Paras 8 and 9] (374-A, B, DJ 
..... 
....... ___ 
F 
2. Clause 22 of the Manual on Disciplinary Action and Related 
Matters ofUCO Bank deals with two situations. One is full exoneration 
in the departmental proceedings and other is acquittal by the court of 
law of the charges levelled. Clause 22(8) specifically deals with acquittal 
G by criminal court It does not exclude acquittal where accused has been 
given benefit of doubt. Clause 22(8) provides guidelines for operating 
1~ 
sub-Regulation (2) of Regulation 15. The High Court was, therefore, 
justified in holding that because of Clause 22(8), the respondent was 
entitled to all benefits to which he would have been normally entitled, 
H 
GENERAL MANAGER, UCO BANK v. M. 
369 
VENURANGANATH [PASAYAT,J.] 
:::it 
had he been on duty. [Paras 9and13] (374-B, C; 375-B] 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5826 of 
2007. 
-
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.06.2004 of the High Court 
of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 685 of B 
2004. 
1 
U.N. Bhachawat, B.L. Anand, Alok Bhachawat and Pratibha Jain 
for the Appellants. 
C.K. Sucharita for the Re

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.