An employee completely exonerated in disciplinary/criminal proceedings is entitled to the salary of the higher post and other benefits from the date of normal promotion.

1. Heard Shri R. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner whereas the respondent-UCO Bank is represented by Shri M. Sarma, the learned counsel.

2. The grievance raised in this petition is with a claim for certain benefits accruing from the services rendered by the petitioner, including claim for promotion and appropriate fitment.

3. The facts projected are that on 19.05.1983, the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk and subsequently he was promoted to the rank of Junior Management Grade Scale-I on 01.02.1999 and thereafter vide an order dated 02.02.1999, he was promoted to the rank of Middle Management Grade Scale-II which however was given effect from 19.12.1997. The said promotion was however withdrawn vide an order dated 20.09.2000 on the ground that a criminal case was pending against the petitioner pertaining to the Prevention of Corruption Act in which prosecution sanction was also granted.

4. Shri Islam, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the criminal case which was registered as Special Case No. 103/2004 in the Court of the Special Judge, Assam at Guwahati had culminated in an order of acquittal dated 15.07.2014 and there was no further appeal by the State. He had accordingly submitted a representation on 19.07.2014 for granting him the benefits. However, vide communication dated 25.05.2015, restricted benefits were given to the petitioner in the following manner:

“Consequent upon your acquittal from charges by Hon’ble Special Judge CBI, Assam, Competent Authority is pleased to restore your promotion from JMGS-I to MMGS-II notionally with effect from 19.12.1997 and to allow monetary benefits arising out of restoration of the above promotion to you from 22.05.2015.”

5. It is submitted that in the intervening period, there were 6 numbers of promotional exercise in which the petitioner had participated and his consideration has been kept in sealed covers. It is also submitted that three more promotional exercise were conducted in the years 2002, 2004 and 2007 in which the petitioner was not considered. By placing reliance on the case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others vs. K.V. Jankiraman and Others, (1991) 4 SCC 109 the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is entitled to all the benefits in a case of the present nature. Specific reference has been made to paragraph 26 of the said judgment which reads as follows:

“26. We are, therefore, broadly in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal that when an employee is completely exonerated meaning thereby that he is not 'found blameworthy in the least and is not visited with the penalty even of censure, he has to be given the benefit of the salary of the higher post along with the other benefits from the date on which he would have normally been promoted but for the disciplinary/criminal proceedings. However, there may be cases' where the proceedings, whether disciplinary or criminal, are, for example, delayed at the instance of the employee or the clearance in the disciplinary proceedings or acquittal in the criminal proceedings is with benefit of doubt or on account of non-availability of evidence due to the acts attributable to the employee etc. In such circumstances, the concerned authorities must be vested with the power to decide whether the employee at all deserves any salary for the intervening period and if he does, the extent to which he deserves it. Life being complex, it is not possible to anticipate and enumerate exhaustively all the circumstances under which such consideration may become necessary. To ignore however, such circumstances when they exist and lay down' an inflexible rule that in every case when an employee is exonerated in disciplinary/ criminal proceedings he should be entitled to all salary for the intervening period is to undermine discipline in the administration and jeopardise public interests. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the Tribunal that to deny the salary to an employe