ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“...to issue writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent nos.2 to 5 in not allowing the petitioner to join duty and also action of the respondents in not releasing balance salary of suspension period i.e., after deducting subsistence allowance for the period from 19.5.2008 to 11.9.2012 i.e., date of reinstatement order and thereafter regular salary as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to record and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to release salary for the above said period and grant all consequential benefits...”.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as clerk cum cashier on 24.05.1982 in the Respondent Bank. Thereafter, in the year 2006, he was promoted as Special Assistant. While so, he was placed under suspension on 19.05.2008 on the allegation of involvement in criminal case regarding missing of cash from the bank. In the said criminal case, vide CC.no.523/2008, the petitioner was convicted by the learned V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur on 04.10.2010 and sentenced to life imprisonment for a period of one year and imposed Rs.5,000/- fine for the offence under Section 409 of IPC, challenging which the petitioner preferred a criminal appeal vide Crl.A.No.478/2010, wherein the Hon’ble Learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Family Court, Guntur acquitted the petitioner vide judgment dated 28.10.2011. Thereafter, though the petitioner was issued order of reinstatement on 11.09.2012, he was treated as a fresh appointee and instead of permitting the petitioner to join into service, the respondents have issued paper notification dated 26.11.2014. In response to which, though the petitioner has reported to the said duty, the respondents have issued impugned proceedings dated 10.12.2014.

3. As per the proceedings dated 11.09.2012, it is clearly stated that though the disciplinary authority has taken a decision to reinstate the petitioner, he is not entitled for back wages for the period of original absence i.e., from the date of dismissal to the date of reporting to the bank. As such, the petitioner has submitted representations dated 11.02.2012, 26.11.2014 requesting the bank authorities to reinstate him with all consequential benefits.

4. Subsequently, as the petitioner has failed to report, a final notice dated 19.11.2014 was issued, directing the petitioner to report on or before 26.11.2014, or else, it will be presumed that the petitioner is not inclined to re-join the duties; in compliance with the orders of the Court referred. Thereafter, on the ground that the petitioner, though has reported to the branch on 26.11.2014, but has refused to acknowledge to the letters in token of acceptance of bank’s offer, the offer of reinstatement was cancelled vide proceedings dated 10.12.2014, challenging which the present writ petition is filed.

5. The respondent No.5 has filed a counter affidavit admitting the fact that the petitioner was initially appointed as a clerk cum cashier on 24.05.1992 and thereafter, in the year 2006, he was promoted as special assistant and also with regard to the criminal case acquittal in Crl.A.No.478/2010, vide judgment dated 28.10.20011. It is further stated that the departmental enquiry was already initiated and was pending by the time the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case and further stated that it is well settled law that merely on the ground of acquittal in criminal case, an employee facing departmental enquiry is not entitled for reinstatement and other consequential benefits as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in South Bengal Transport Corporation Vs. Swapam Kumar Mitra and Others.

6. However considering the request of the Writ Petitioner, the Respondent Bank has issued a letter to the Writ Petitioner on 11-09-2012, which was acknowledged by the Petitioner on 09-10-20