1
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4633/2008
Suraj Mal Jaipal
Vs
State Bank of Bikaner & Ors.
Date of Order 17.2.2010
HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.
Mr. MR Singhvi, for the petitioner.
Mr.PK Lohra, for the respondents.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner was dismissed from the service only
because of the reason that petitioner was convicted in a
criminal case under Section 302 IPC vide judgment dated
2.8.1983. No departmental inquiry was conducted by the
respondents against the petitioner and as stated above, he
was dismissed from service only because of his conviction
dated 2.8.1983. The petitioner’s appeal against the
conviction i.e., DB Cr. Appeal no.303/1983 was allowed on
5th Sept., 2007 (Annex.7) and petitioner was acquitted from
the charge referred above.
The petitioner’s contention is that the very cause on
the basis of which, the petitioner’s service was terminated
itself has fallen to the ground and, therefore, the order of
termination of service of the petitioner (Annex.3) deserves
to be set aside and in fact, that order should have been
withdrawn by the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute
this fact that no departmental inquiry was held for taking
any disciplinary action against the petitioner and he was
2
dismissed from service only because of the reason that
petitioner was convicted vide judgment and order dated
2.8.1983. However, this fact is also clear from the Annex.3
itself. Learned counsel for the respondents in that situation
submitted that even if the order dated 22.8.1983 dismissing
the petitioner from service (Annex.3) is set aside even then
the petitioner is not entitled to any back wages because of
the reason that prosecution was not lodged by the
respondents and, therefore, the prayer of the back wages
may be denied.
I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the facts of the case.
From Annex.3 it is clear that petitioner was dismissed
from bank services w.e.f. 2.8.1983 i.e., from the date of the
conviction of the petitioner. It is admitted case that
petitioner has not been punished in departmental inquiry
because of any of the misconduct and he has been
straightway dismissed from service because of his
conviction only. That conviction has been set aside by the
judgment of this court dated 5th Sept., 2007 delivered by
the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, the very basis
for the order dated 22.8.1983 has come to an end with the
acquittal of the petitioner on 5th Sept., 2007. The order of
dismissal of the petitioner, therefore, cannot be sustained
and deserves to be set aside. However, since the
prosecution was not lodged by the respondents-employer,
3
therefore, the respondents-employer cannot be held guilty
for preventing the petitioner from discharging his duties
and, therefore, the respondents cannot be burdened with
the back wages of the petitioner from 2.8.1983 to 5th Sept.,
2007, the date on which, the petitioner was acquitted by the
Division Bench of this Court in a criminal case.
In view of the above reasons, the writ petition of the
petitioner is allowed. The order dated 22.8.1983 (Annex.3)
dismissing the petitioner from bank service is set aside.
However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any back
wages from 2.8.1983 to 5th Sept., 2007. The petitioner
shall be entitled to other notional benefits and continuity of
service as well as other monitory benefits, which can be
granted as per the rules of the respondents. The petitioner’s
claim for promotion may also be considered by the
respondents and if found eligible only then the petitioner
can be granted that promotion. It is made clear that
petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation
before acquittal, therefore, the petitioner shall not be
entitled to seeking reinstatment now. The respondents are
directed to complete the process within a period of 4
months from today as according to learned counsel for the
petitioner, the petitioner is cancer patient.
[PRAKASH TATIA], J.
cpgoyal/-