Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 4972
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
K. Chandru, J.
S. Krishnamurthy - Appellant
Vs.
State Bank Of India And Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No's. 24660 of 2002, 6101 of 2008
Decided On : 28-09-2012
For the Appellant : Balan Haridas
For the Respondent: Kala Ramesh and K. Sankaran
The distinction between an honorable acquittal and the right to initiate disciplinary action after acquittal, and the standard of proof in a departmental enquiry and a criminal case.
Headnote:
Back Wages - Employment Dispute - Section 420 IPC, Banking Regulation Act, Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.4.2002 - The court discussed the legal provisions of Section 420 IPC, Banking Regulation Act, and Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.4.2002. The court emphasized the distinction between an honorable acquittal and the right to initiate disciplinary action after acquittal. The court also considered the standard of proof in a departmental enquiry and a criminal case, and the effect of Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. on acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The workman filed a writ petition challenging the denial of back wages and attendant benefits by the State Bank of India (SBI) after his reinstatement following acquittal in a criminal case. The Management imposed a penalty of Censure on the workman after a personal enquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the acquittal of the workman was honorable, and the Management's delay in initiating disciplinary action was uncalled for. The court set aside the penalty of Censure and ruled in favor of the workman, entitling him to back wages and attendant benefits.
Issues: The issues revolved around the denial of back wages and attendant benefits to the workman after his reinstatement following acquittal, and the imposition of a penalty of Censure by the Management.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the distinction between an honorable acquittal and the right to initiate disciplinary action after acquittal. It also considered the standard of proof in a departmental enquiry and a criminal case, and the effect of Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. on acquittal.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the penalty of Censure, and ruled in favor of the workman, entitling him to back wages and attendant benefits.
K. Chandru, J.
W.P. No. 24660 of 2002 was filed by the workman S. Krishnamurthy, who working as Messenger in the State Bank of India (for short SBI), seeking to challenge the order of the Assistant General Manager, SBI, Zonal Office, Tiruchirapalli dated 9.1.2002 insofar as Paragraph 6 as it denies the workman the benefit of back wages, attendant benefits from the date of discharge till the date of reinstatement as illegal and for a consequential direction to pay back wages, and all other attendant benefits from 18.10.1996 being the date of discharge till date of reinstatement i.e. 15.1.2002. That writ petition was admitted on 11.7.2002. On notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent SBI dated 17.10.2003. Pending the writ petition, an application in W.P.M.P. No. 33913 of 2012 was filed for interim direction to pay back wages and other attendant benefits. This Court rejected the said application on the ground that the relief claimed in the main writ petition and the Miscellaneous petition was one and the same.
2. The workman was initially convicted u/s 420 IPC with the punishment of 6 months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipundi vide judgment dated 24.6.1996. Therefore, the Management by an order dated 18.10.1996 discharged the workman from service. The workman informed the Bank that he had filed an appeal against the said order before the Additional Assistant Judge, Nagapattinam in C.A. No. 41 of 1996.
3. Thereafter, the workman filed Criminal Revision Case No. 758 of 1996 before this Court. This Court permitted the workman to compound the offence and he was acquitted by an order dated 15.7.1999. On the strength of the same, the workman wrote to the Management that since the offence has been compounded, there was no conviction on record and hence requested to reinstate him in service with all benefits. As there was no reply, the workman filed W.P. No. 22539 of 2001 seeking for a direction to pass orders on his representation dated 20.12.1989. This Court disposed of the writ petition by order dated 21.11.2001 and directed the Bank to consider his representation.
4. It was pursuant to the same, the Bank passed the impugned order dated 9.1.2002. In paragraphs 4 to 6, it was stated as follows:
4. It is observed that you were permitted by the Honourable High Court to "compound the offence with P.W. 1" and consequently acquitted of the charges in the above referred criminal case.
5. Please therefore note that your reinstatement in service is without prejudice to the Bank's right to initiate suitable disciplinary action against you for your involvement in criminal offence.
6. Also please note that you will not be paid any back wages or any other attendant benefits for the period from the date of discharge till the date of reinstatement.
5. Aggrieved by the para 6 extracted above, the writ petition came to be filed. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the Management issued a show cause notice on 2.12.2003 alleging that he had violated the service rule while he was working as a Messenger at Thiruthuraipundi branch, for pecuniary advantage by abusing his position as an employee; he had not returned or informed about the fate of the unused cheque leaves, when the Savings Bank Account maintained in his name at Thiruthuraipundi Branch was closed; one of the customer by name R. Natarajan of Korkkai entered the Branch premises with an intention to remit Rs. 35,000 in his account on 5.12.1991, whereas, the workman had intercepted him and prevented him from doing so; he had misled him and convinced him to lend the said amount to him; he had issued a cheque dated 6.1.1992 for a sum of Rs. 35,000/- to R. Natarajan without any operative account; when the said cheque was presented for payment/collection, the same was returned for the reason that his account was already closed. He also remained absent unauthorisedly from 18.9.1996.
6. The workman sent a reply d
