LexSUSHILA TIWARY AND OTHERS versus ALLAHABAD BANK AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 561 SUSHILA TIWARY AND OTHERS v. ALLAHABAD BANK AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No.5224 of 2012) JULY 16, 2012 [G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.) SERVICE LAW: Termination from service - Bank employee - Served charge-sheets and also prosecuted in criminal case - Conviction by trial court - Employee terminated from service A B c - Acquittal by appellate court on benefit of doubt - Employee placed under suspension, and on conclusion of the inquiry, 0 his services terminated - Held: In the instant case, Clause 19.3(d) of Bi-Partite Settlement, 1966 is applicable - Clause 19.3(d) read along with N<;>tice dated 2. 7.2001, makes it clear that the employee stood reinstated w.e.f. 21. 7.1999, i.e. the date on which he was originally dismissed from service, and E deemed to be continuing under suspension since then and, as such, was entitled to subsistence allowance and not the full pay and allowances - Bi-partite Settlement, 1966 - Clause 19.3(c), 19.3(d), 19.5(d) and 19.5(j). The husband of appellant no. 1, who was in the F employment of the respondent Bank, was charge-sheeted by the Bank for certain acts of omission and commission and was also prosecuted before the criminal court. The trial court convicted him ulss 468 and 477-A, IPC and sentenced him to RI for one year each under both the G counts. Consequently, the employee was terminated from service by order dated 21.7.1999. He filed an appeal against his conviction, and the appellate court acquitted him giving him the benefit of doubt. The Bank ordered on 561 H 562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 6 S.C.R. A 2.7.2001 that the employee would be deemed to have been placed under suspension w.e.f. 21.7.1999. The charges against the employee were found proved and, ultimately, by order dated 1~.6.2003, his services were terminated. During the pendency of the writ petition filed B by the employee, he died and hi~ 1 legal heirs were substituted. The single Judge dismissed the writ petition and the Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the legal heirs. In the instant appeal, it was contended for the C appellants that without reinstating the employee no departmental inquiry could be initiated and further, in view of Clause 19.3(c) of the Bi-partite Settlement, 1996, he was entitled to full pay and allowances minus the subsistence for the period of suspension. D Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Clause 19.3(c) of the Bi-Partite Settlement, 1966 applies to the cases where the employee is E acquitted during the trial. On the other hand, Clause 19.3(d) applies to the cases where the convicted employee prefers an appeal or revision application against his conviction and is acquitted. Under Clause 19.3(d) if an employee applies to the management for reconsideration of his case on acquittal, the management F is required to review his case and may either reinstate him or proceed against him under the provisions set in Clauses 19.11 and 19.12 relating to discharge, the period up-to-date for which full pay and allowances have not been paid being treated as one of suspension. [para 13] G [568-F-G] 1.2 In the instant case, the employee was convicted and sentenced by the trial court u/ss 468 and 477-A IPC. He was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt in the H criminal appeal. In such case, he was liable to be SUSHILA TIWARY v. ALLAHABAD BANK 563 proceeded under Clause 19.3(d). The appellants cannot A derive of the benefit of Clause 19.3(c) [para 14] [569-A-B] 1.3 If Clause 19.3(d) is read along with the notice dated 2.7.2001, it is clear that the employee stood reinstated w.e.f. 21.7.1999, i.e., the date on which he was B originally dismissed from service and deemed to be continuing under suspension since then. This Court, therefore, holds that he was entitled for subsistence allowance and not the full pay and allowances. There is no illegality in the order of termination or the orders C passed by the single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. [para 15-16] [569-E-G] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5224 of 2012. From the Judgment & Order dated 03.05.2010 of the High Court of Patna in LP.A. No. 762 of 2010. Mohit Kumar Shah for the AppeHants. D Dhruv Mehta, Yashraj Singh Deera, Rajesh Kumar, Shri E Ram Krishna for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOf>ADHAYA, J. 1. Delay condoned. L
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.