IMPORTANT POINTS
In view of the prohibition against the Bank in employing a convicted person under Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, it is difficult to visualise as to how he would be entitled to payment of salary during the said period. It was held that his subsequent acquittal though obliterates his conviction, does not operate retrospectively to wipe out the legal consequences of the conviction under the Act and the entitlement of the respondent to backwages has to be judged accordingly.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is the widow of late K.Gopal Mohan, who died on 24.10.2012 while working as an Assistant Manager of the State Bank of India. Late Gopal Mohan was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 order on 29.06.1993 while he was working as Assistant Manager on the allegation that he committed misconduct in violation of Rule 32(4) of SBI Supervising Staff Service Rules read with rule 50(4) of S.B.I.Officers' Service Rules, in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings.

2. Ext.P3 memo of charge was issued to him on 14.12.1995 alleging commission of misconduct in sanctioning agricultural loan. Though late Gopal Mohan submitted his explanation, enquiry was conducted in which out of 7 charges, charge No.1(a) and charge No.2(b) were found proved and Charge no. 2(a) was found partly proved. Accepting the findings in the enquiry, he was awarded a punishment of reduction in basic pay by two stages with cumulative effect and the period of suspension was treated as suspension itself. Though an appeal was filed, the same was rejected.

3. While so, he was convicted in the criminal case for offences under section 120B, read with sections 420, 466, 468 and 471 IPC along with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment, as per the judgment dated 30.12.2002 in CC.No.5/1998 and connected cases. On the basis of the conviction, the General Manager issued Ext.P8 order on 06.02.2003 discharging him from service under rule 68(7)(i) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules. Against the conviction the petitioner's husband had filed Criminal Appeal No.90/2003 which was allowed by Ext.P9 judgment dated 25.03.2011. On the basis of the acquittal, late K.Gopal Mohan submitted a representation requesting for back wages. He had also filed WP(C).No.1189/2005 before this Court which was withdrawn as per judgment dated 21.11.2012. Subsequent to the rejection of his claim for back wages as per Ext.P11 dated 26.09.2012, the Chief General Manager rejected his claim on the ground that he was convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude. It was stated that after his acquittal he was eligible for reinstatement, but not for back wages. But by the time he was acquitted he was already attained the age of superannuation and therefore he was not liable to be reinstated and was not eligible for back wages. While so, Sri.Gopal Mohan expired and therefore, his wife, the petitioner herein, has filed this Writ Petition challenging the orders Ext.P6 by which reduction of pay was imposed on him, Ext.P7 by which his appeal was rejected, Ext.P8 by which he was discharged from service consequent to conviction and Ext.P11 by which his claim for backwages was rejected. The petitioner claims that on acquittal from criminal case, her husband was entitled to backwages; her husband had already suffered a punishment in the Departmental proceedings and he cannot be subjected to another punishment on the basis of the conviction in the criminal proceedings and, at any rate, when the conviction was set aside in the appeal he would be entitled to backwages.

4. According to the respondents, under the provisions contained in Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 an employee who is convicted for moral turpitude is prohibited from continuing in employment. Rule 68(7)(1) of the SBI Officers Service Rules also provides for the same.

5. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner's husband following the order of suspension. On the basis of the findings in the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority had awarded him the punishment of reduction in wages by two stages for one year with cumulative effect. The appeal filed by him was rejected. According to them, since the petitioner's husband had filed W.P(c).No.1190/2015 for backwages without challenging the order of punishment awarded in the disciplinary proceedings, the petiti