An employee's acquittal from conviction allows for calculation of retirement benefits as if they served during the intervening period, despite notional service re-instatement.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 4th day of May, 2021 The 1st petitioner filed this writ petition invoking Article

226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-

“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to the respondents calling for the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P11, Ext.P15, Ext.P17, and Ext.P21 orders and quashing them to the extent they deny the benefit of qualifying service from 27.04.2008 to 31.01.2015 and various service benefits and retirement benefits to the petitioner.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner as having continued in service from 27.4.2008 to 31.03.2015 without interruption and reckon the petitioner's service from 27.04.2008 to 31.03.2015 as qualifying service for all service benefits like notional promotion, notional pay fixation, pay revision etc, and computation of all retirement benefits.

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to consider the case of notional promotion of the petitioner from Middle Management Grade, Scale- II to Middle Management Grade, Scale-III on the basis of the findings of the Departmental Promotion Committee as on 31.03.2002, 31.03.2005 and

31.03.2006, kept in sealed covers, through a transparent process.

(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to grant perks like medical reimbursements, newspaper allowance, leave travel concessions, etc, payable to the petitioner for the period from 08.01.2008 to 31.03.2015.

(v) Direct the respondents to disburse arrears of pay from 27.04.2008 to 31.03.2015 revised pay and revised retirement benefits and of other perks consequent on notional re-fixaion of pay with interest at

12% per annum.”

The 1st petitioner passed away on 08.12.2020. The 2nd petitioner, who is wife of the 1st petitioner, was hence impleaded as additional 2nd petitioner in the writ petition.

2. The 1st petitioner entered services under the 1st respondent-Bank on 01.08.1977 and was working as Assistant Manager (Credits) in Kollam Branch of the Bank. In the year 1998, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) initiated a suo motu case which was registered as Crime No.10/2005. The allegation was that the petitioner conspired with three other accused and committed serious financial irregularities, violating various provisions of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was alleged that the Bank has ₹

sustained a loss of 43,80,895.54 due to the omissions and commissions of the petitioner.

3. The 1st petitioner was issued with Ext.P4 charge sheet under Regulation 6 of the Bank of India Officer Employees’ Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. A minor penalty of “reduction to one lower stage in the present basic pay drawn by him for a period of one year without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension” was imposed, as per Ext.P5 order dated 11.02.2004.

4. The petitioner was however convicted by the Special Court SPL/CBI-II, Ernakulam on 08.01.2008. Based solely on the conviction by the trial court, the petitioner was compulsorily retired invoking Regulation 4(h) r/w Regulation 11 of the Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, as per Ext.P1 dated 26.04.2008. The 1st petitioner filed Ext.P2 appeal against the order of compulsory retirement, which was rejected as per Ext.P3 order on 26.07.2008. The 1st petitioner had filed Crl.Appeal No.109/2008 before this Court, against the conviction. This Court set aside the conviction on 31.05.2016 as per Ext.P6 judgment. In the meanwhile, the date of retirement of the petitioner, 31.05.2015, was over and hence the 1st petitioner could not aspire for reinstatement in service on the basis of his acquittal.

5. During the departmental proceedings the 1st petitioner’s candidature for promotion from Mid