Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5826 of 2007
PETITIONER:
General Manager, UCO Bank and Anr
RESPONDENT:
M. Venuranganath
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/12/2007
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & AFTAB ALAM
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5826 OF 2007
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.23654 of 2004)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment of a Division
Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the writ
appeal filed by the respondent.
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The respondent, who, at the relevant point of time was
Branch Manager of appellant No.l-Bank and was posted at
Nellore in Andhra Pradesh was charged and tried along with
one Shrinivasulu s/o Chenchuramaiah for offences
punishable under Sections 120-B, 471 and 477 of Indian
Penal Code 1860 (in short the ’the IPC’) and Section 5(2) read
with Section 5 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
(in short the ’Prevention of Corruption Act’). Both the accused
persons were tried in the Court of Special Judge for CBI cases.
They were acquitted by judgment dated 11.12.2002 giving
them benefit of doubt. The respondent was placed under
suspension from 15.06.1988 till he was reinstated on
04.05.1993. After his reinstatement, departmental proceedings
were initiated. The same were questioned by a writ petition
being writ Petition No.15797 of 1994 which was allowed by
learned Single Judge. But in writ appeal No.884 of 1998, a
Division Bench directed dismissal of the writ petition. The
departmental enquiry was concluded on 29.02.2003. The
respondent was found guilty. So far as payment of salary,
allowances etc. are concerned, relevant portion of the order
read as follows:
"In the light of the above punishment the
undersigned further directs that Sri M. Venu
Ranganath will not be entitled to any salary
and allowances and other attendant- benefits
including increment for the period spent by
him under suspension, save and except the
Subsistence Allowance already paid to him
during the said period."
3. The respondent filed writ petition being Writ Petition
No.11615 of 1994 claiming pay and allowances for the period
of suspension which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
Respondent filed Writ Appeal No.685 of 2004 which was
allowed by the impugned order. It was inter-alia held by the
Division Bench that C1ause-22 of the applicable Manual i.e. A
Manual on Disciplinary Action and Related Matters of UCO
Bank governed the case and not Regulation 15(2) of the United
Commercial Bank (Conduct and Discipline and Appeal)
Regulation, 1976.
4. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the
Division Bench was not justified in holding that Clause 22(8)
of the Manual was to operate and not Regulation 15(2) of the
Regulation. It is stated that the Manual is nothing but
guidelines inducted and at the most, may be termed as
Executive Instructions. The Regulations are statutory in
mature.
5. It is pointed out that acquittal in a criminal case has
nothing to do with departmental proceedings and law is clearly
well settled. Notwithstanding acquittal in a criminal case,
departmental proceedings can be initiated and/or continued.
6. In response, learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that the factual position shows that the only time
respondent was placed under suspension was because of the
criminal case under Regulation 12(1)(b). Even though
departmental proceedings were initiated, the respondent was
never placed under suspension. According to her, the case
covered by Regulation 15(2) relates to cases not covered by
sub-Regulation (1).
7. There can be no doubt that criminal proceedings and
departmental proceedings operate in different fields. Even
though the person may have been acquitted in a criminal trial,
there is no embargo on his being departmentally proceeded
against. But the question here is slightly different. The
relevant provisions need to be quoted:
"11. Special procedure in certain cases:
Notwithstanding anything contained in
regulation 6 or regulation 7 or regulation 8 the
Disciplinary Authority may impose any of the
penalties specified in regulation 4 if the
officer/employee has been convicted on a
criminal charge, or on the strength of facts or
conclusions arrived at by a judicial trial."
Regulation 12: Suspension:
(1) An officer employee may be placed under
suspension by the competent authority -
(a) where a disciplinary proceeding
against him is contemplated or is
pending; or
(b) where a case against him in respect
of any criminal offence is under
investigation, inquiry or trial.
(2) An officer employee shall be deemed to
have been placed under suspension by an
order of the competent authority \026
(a) with effect from the date of his
detention, if he is detained in
custody, whether on a criminal
charge or otherwise, for a period
exceeding forty-eighty hours;
(b) with effect from the date of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
conviction, if in the event of a
conviction for an offence, he is
sentenced to a term of
imprisonment exceeding forty-eight
hours and is not forthwith
dismissed or removed or
compulsorily retired consequent to
such conviction.
Explanation :- The period of forty-eight hours
referred to in clause (b) of this sub-regulation
shall be computed from the commencement of
the imprisonment after the conviction and for
this purpose, intermittent periods of
imprisonment, if any, shall be taken into
account.
(3) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or
compulsory retirement from service imposed
upon an officer employee under suspension is
set aside in appeal or on review under these
regulations and the case is remitted for further
inquiry or action or with any directions, the
order of his suspension shall be deemed to
have continued in force on and from the date
of the original order of dismissal, removal or
compulsory retirement and shall remain in
force until further orders.
(4) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or
compulsorily retirement from service imposed
upon an officer employee under suspension is
set aside or declared or rendered void in
consequence of or by a decision of a court of
law, and the disciplinary authority, on
consideration of the circumstances of the case,
decides to hold further inquiry against him on
the allegations on which the penalty of
dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement
was originally imposed, the officer employee
shall be deemed to have been placed under
suspension by the competent authority from
the date of the original order of dismissal,
removal or compulsory retirement and shall
continue to remain under suspension until
further orders.
(5) (a) An order of suspension made or
deemed to have been made under this
regulation shall continue to remain in
force until it is modified or revoked by the
authority competent to do so.
(b) An order of suspension made or
deemed to have been made under this
regulation may at any time be modified or
revoked by the authority which made or
is deemed to have made the order."
"Regulation 15: Pay allowances and treatment
of service on termination of suspension:
(1) Where the competent authority holds that
the officer employee has been fully exonerated
or that the suspension was unjustifiable, the
officer employee concerned shall be granted
the full pay to which he would have been
entitled had he not been suspended, together
with any allowance of which he was in receipt
immediately prior to his suspension, or may
have been sanctioned subsequently and made
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
applicable to all officer employees.
(2) In all cases other than those referred to in
sub-regulation (1), the officer employee shall
be granted such proportion of pay and
allowances as the Competent Authority may
direct;
Provided that the payment of allowances
under this sub-regulation shall be subject to
all other conditions to which such allowances
are admissible:
Provided further that the pay and
allowances granted under this sub-regulation
shall not be less than the subsistence and
other allowances admissible under regulation
14.
3(a) In a case falling under sub-regulation (1)
the period of absence from duty shall, for all
purposes, be treated as a period spent on duty;
(b) In a case falling under sub-regulation (2),
the period of absence from duty shall not be
treated as a period spent on duty unless the
Competent Authority specifically directs, for
reason to be recorded in writing, that it shall
be so treated for any specific purpose."
Clause 22.8 of the Manual "Where a
suspended officer employee has been fully
exonerated in the departmental enquiry or
acquittal by the court of law of the charges
levelled against him the competent authority
holds that the suspension was unjustifiable,
he would be entitled to all benefits to which he
would have been normally entitled, had he
been on duty. However, the employee in such a
case would not be entitled to accumulate leave
beyond the permissible limit."
8. A bare reading of Revelation 12 shows that suspension
can be directed under two circumstances. The first is where a
disciplinary proceeding against the concerned employee is
contemplated or is pending; and the second is where a case
against him in respect of any criminal offence is under
investigation, inquiry or trial. Undisputedly, the respondent
was placed under suspension under Regulation 12(i)(b).
Regulation 15 deals with two types of situations. As the
heading itself shows, it relates to pay and allowances and
termination of service on termination or suspension. Sub-
Regulation (1) deals with the power of competent authority on
completion of the departmental enquiry. All other cases,
except those covered by Sub-Regulation (1), the competent
authority has to direct as regards the proportion of pay and
allowances to be granted.
9. Clause 22 of the Manual deals with two situations. One
is full exoneration in the departmental proceedings and other
is acquittal by the court of law of the charges levelled. Clause
22(8) specifically deals with acquittal by criminal court. It does
not exclude acquittal where accused has been given benefit of
doubt. A close reading of Sub-Regulation (1) of Regulation 15
would show that the same is relatable to departmental
proceedings. While other cases, meaning, cases not covered by
departmental proceedings, which obviously would include the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
criminal trial are covered by sub-regulation (2).
10. At this juncture, it would also be relevant to take note of
Clause 21(9) of the Regulation. It deals with entitlements for
benefits after acquittal by a criminal court.
11. The same reads as follows:
"Where a suspended employee has been
fully exonerated in the departmental enquiry
or honourably acquitted by the courts of law of
the charges levelled against him, he would be
entitled to all benefits to which he would have
been normally entitled, had he been on duty.
However, the employee in such a case would
not be entitled to all benefits to which he
would have been normally entitled, had he
been on duty. However, the employee in such a
case would not be entitled to accumulate leave
beyond the permissible limit. However, if the
employee is acquitted by being given the
benefit of doubt he may be paid such portion
of pay and allowances as the management may
deem proper and the period of his suspension
shall not be treated as period spent on duty
unless the management so direct."
12. It is to be noted that Regulation 21(9) does not relate to
officers and the respondent herein was an officer and,
therefore, Regulation 21 has no relevance as it covers only the
award staff.
13. Clause 22(8) obviously is relatable to Clause 15(2),
meaning that it provides guidelines for operating sub-
Regulation (2) of Regulation 15. The High Court was, therefore,
justified in holding that because of Clause 22(8), the
respondent was entitled to all benefits to which he would have
been normally entitled, had he been on duty. Therefore, no
interference is called for.
14. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no
order as to costs.