Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 1287
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
INDERJIT SINGH - Petitioner
Versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Respondent
W.P.(C) 1559/2008
Decided on: 27-04-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Bhalla, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Jagat Arora, Adv.
The petitioner should be treated as having got a clean acquittal from the criminal court and is entitled to full pay and allowances for the period of suspension.
Headnote:
Bipartite Settlement (Chapter 19) - The court referred to para 19.3(c) of the Bipartite Settlement, which deals with disciplinary action and procedure. The court held that the bank could not treat the period of suspension as period not spent on duty and deny the benefits of full back wages and other benefits for the period under suspension.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of Punjab National Bank, was suspended and later acquitted in a criminal case. The bank denied him full back wages and other benefits for the period of suspension. The petitioner challenged this order before the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court examined the judgment of the criminal court and found that there was no evidence against the petitioner to connect him to the offense. The court held that the use of the term 'benefit of doubt' in the judgment did not negate the finding of the criminal court. The court referred to relevant provisions of the Bipartite Settlement and held that the bank could not treat the period of suspension as period not spent on duty and deny the benefits of full back wages and other benefits. The court also considered precedents that supported the petitioner's claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner should be treated as having got a clean acquittal from the criminal court and was entitled to full pay and allowances for the period of suspension. The court set aside the bank's order denying the benefits and directed the bank to adjust the subsistence allowance received by the petitioner with interest. The court rejected the petitioner's claim for interest on the delayed payment of PF amount.
Result: The petition was disposed of in favor of the petitioner, who was entitled to full pay and allowances for the period of suspension. The petitioner's claim for interest on the delayed payment of PF amount was rejected.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key events are as follows:
-
The petitioner, an employee of Punjab National Bank, was suspended from service following the registration of an FIR related to allegations of fraud and misappropriation involving the introduction of an accused person and the opening of a false account (!) (!) .
-
The criminal case against the petitioner was ultimately decided by a court, which acquitted him of the charges on January 13, 2004, giving him the benefit of doubt due to lack of evidence establishing dishonest intent (!) (!) .
-
Despite the acquittal, the respondent bank issued an order on October 14, 2006, denying the petitioner full back wages and other benefits for the period of suspension from August 14, 1986, until his superannuation on January 31, 1999, citing the use of the term "benefit of doubt" in the criminal judgment as justification (!) (!) .
-
The petitioner challenged this order before the court, asserting that he was entitled to full pay and allowances during the suspension period, based on the criminal court’s finding of no evidence against him and the applicable provisions of the Bipartite Settlement, which treat such acquittals as indicating that the employee was on duty and should receive full benefits (!) (!) .
-
The court examined the criminal judgment and clarified that the use of "benefit of doubt" did not diminish the fact that the petitioner was acquitted due to lack of evidence, which should be interpreted as a clean acquittal. The court found that the respondent bank had misread the judgment and that the petitioner was entitled to full back wages and allowances for the entire suspension period (!) (!) .
-
The court further directed the bank to adjust the subsistence allowance received by the petitioner with interest and rejected the claim for interest on delayed PF payments, reasoning that the delay was attributable to the petitioner’s own acceptance of the PF amount in 2004 and the delay in filing the petition (!) (!) .
-
The petition was ultimately disposed of in favor of the petitioner, affirming his entitlement to full pay and allowances for the suspension period and setting aside the bank’s order to deny such benefits (!) .
These events collectively outline the progression from suspension, criminal acquittal, legal challenge, and the court’s intervention to affirm the petitioner’s rights to benefits during the suspension period.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, with the following prayers: I. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/set aside the Order dated 14.10.2006 of Respondent Bank with directions to the Respondent Bank to release full pay and allowances of the petitioner with all consequential benefits which would have been admissible to petitioner, had he been not placed under suspension and his withheld terminal dues along with interest @ 15% p.a.
II. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding directions to the respondent bank to pay interest @ 15% p.a. to the petitioner on his PF amount released so far for delayed period from the date of his retirement on 31.1.1999 till actual payment in the year 2004. III. Issue any other writ, order or direction and/or such further or other orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of present case”.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Clerk-cum- Cashier in Punjab National Bank, Jor Bagh Branch, New Delhi. At the relevant time, he was posted in Kirti Nagar Branch, New Delhi. On August 8, 1986, an FIR bearing No. 185/86 was registered pursuant to which, the petitioner was arrested and put under suspension on August 14, 1986. It is matter of record that the letter of suspension was modified on September 28, 1986. The FIR was related to Sections 420/ 468/471 IPC. The allegations primarily were that one Mr. Ashok Kumar was employed with the complainant Darshan Lal and he used to collect cheques from DTC and deposit the same in the account of the complainant. Accused Ashok Kumar obtained some cheques from DTC and opened a false account in the name of Darshan Lal in the branch office of the respondent bank at Kirti Nagar, where the petitioner was working and deposited the cheques and encashed the amount and misappropriated the same. The role of the petitioner was that he introduced the accused Ashok Kumar as Darshan Lal and signed the account opening form. The petitioner superannuated on January 31, 1999. The criminal case was finally decided by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on January 13, 2004, wherein the petitioner was acquitted by giving him, benefit of doubt. Based on the judgment of the Criminal Court, the respondent bank has passed an order dated October 14, 2006, denying the benefit of full wages and other benefits to the petitioner for the period he remained under suspension from August 14, 1986 till he attained the age of superannuation on January 31, 1999. It is this order, which is under challenge before this Court in the present petition.
3. It is the submission of Mr. Ashok Bhalla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the word “benefit of doubt” in the writ petition is a misnomer inasmuch as the petitioner was honourably acquitted as there was no evidence found against the petitioner of any misdemeanour. According to him, the finding of benefit of doubt would only arise when on the basis of evidence, two views were possible and after analysis of the evidence, the Court gives the benefit of doubt in view of the two views possible. It is not a case where the evidence, which has come on record, depicts two views. It was only one view that there was no iota of evidence to show the petitioner was having any dishonest intention to cheat the complainant, which was the subject-matter of charge against the petitioner. He would state that there is a finding of the Criminal Court that from the evidence on record, it is not even established that the petitioner was aware at the time of introducing the accused Ashok Kumar that he was Ashok and not Darshan Lal. He has drawn my attention to the judgment of the Criminal Court dated January 13, 2004 in that regard, more specifically para 10 wherein the Criminal Court has given its finding qua the petitioner. According t
