GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is directed against the judgment dated November 24, 1997 in Writ petition No. 15797 of 1994, passed by the learned single Judge of this Court.

( 2 ) FACTS of the case, which are relevant for the purpose of the disposal of the case, are as follows:

( 3 ) THE respondent herein, who is the writ petitioner, joined the services of the appellant-Bank on March 16, 1966 as Clerk. On January 1, 1976 he was promoted as Officer scale I; and was posted as Accountant at Guntur in the month of June, 1976 and thereafterwards in the month of April, 1979 he was transferred as Manager to Nellore Branch. It seems that on the alleged ground that he granted ten bricks loans and three duck loans, unauthorisedly in violation of the Regulations governing grant of such loans, in the year 1982 itself, the bank-management ordered preliminary enquiry by appointing one sri S. Srinivasan and the report was submitted by the officer in the year 1982.

( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, on March 23, 1987 the crime alleged against the petitioner was taken over by the C. B. I, and it lodged the complaint. After due trial the respondent was acquitted by the C. B. I. Court on December 11, 1992. It is stated that C. B. I, did not appeal against the acquittal order. Further, the C. B. I. Court while acquitting the accused categorically observed that it was a fit case for taking departmental action. That acquittal order has become final. The appellant-bank revoked the suspension of the respondent and reinstated him into service on May 4, 1992. During the years 1993-94, the respondent made several representations to the bank-management for payment of back wages for the period during which he was kept under suspension pending trial before the C. B. I. Court deeming him to be in service although. Since there was no positive response from the bank-management, the respondent herein filed w. P. No. 11651 of 1994 in this Court.

( 5 ) THIS Court by its order dated June 29, 1994 disposed of the writ petition directing the bank-management to consider the representation of the respondent, writ petitioner therein, dated February 16, 1994 for payment of back wages. The bank again declined to accede to his request by its proceedings dated July 28, 1994. Then came the impugned charge-memo dated August 6, 1994. Hence, the writ petition was filed seeking the following reliefs :"for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner prays this Hon ble court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction of like nature. A. to declare as void, without jurisdiction and illegal the commencement of proceedings under Regulation 6 of the UCO bank Officer Employees (Discipline and appeal) Regulations 1976, in pursuance of the communication of the 2nd respondent bearing ref. No. SZ/vig/94/353 dated July 30, 1947 August 6, 1994 and the statement of allegations and articles of charge enclosed to the said communication;b. to direct the respondents to forbear from taking any proceedings including holding of any enquiry under Regulation 6 of the UCO bank Officer Employees (Discipline and appeal) Regulations, 1976. "

( 6 ) THE learned single Judge of this Court by his order dated November 24, 1997 in w. P. No. 15797 of 1994 quashed the impugned charge memo and allowed the writ petition mainly on two grounds that (1) the acquittal of the writ petitioner by the criminal court is not on technical grounds but on merits, and (2) on the ground of laches in initiating departmental action after lapse of 13 years, and that no public interest would be served by subjecting the writ petitioner for one more enquiry at the hands of the management at this distance of time.

( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-UCO Bank.

( 8 ) HEARD Sri K. Subrahmanya Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Bank and Ms. A. Anasuya, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitione

Click Here to Read the rest of this document