W.P.(C) No. 20557 of 2013 (T). Case: P.K. Rajeevan Vs The Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Bank and Ors.. High Court of Kerala (India)

Case NumberW.P.(C) No. 20557 of 2013 (T)
CounselFor Appellant: C.P. Sudhakara Prasad, Sr. Adv., S. Ramesh, Naveen T. and Pooja Surendran, Advs. and For Respondents: S. Easwaran, Adv.
JudgesAnu Sivaraman, J.
IssueConstitution of India - Article 226
Judgement DateFebruary 02, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Kerala (India)

Judgment:

Anu Sivaraman, J.

1. This writ petition is filed challenging Exhibits P4, P6(a), P8(a) and P12 issued in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. There is a further prayer to direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as having continued in service upto 31.7.2013 and to grant him all retirement benefits, as if he retired from service on such date.

2. The petitioner had joined the service of the respondent Bank as Clerk on 9.4.1979. He was promoted as Officer Scale-I in 1984 and further as Officer Scale-ll and then promoted as Branch Manager. He worked as Branch Manager in Chalai Branch from 26.1.2001 to 3.5.2002. He was placed under suspension on allegations of financial misconduct, and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Exhibit P4 order dismissing him from service was issued on 5.5.2005. The petitioner's appeal and revision against Exhibit P4 were dismissed by Exhibit P6(a) order dated 28.7.2006 and Exhibit P8(a) order dated 30.3.2007. The petitioner contends that Exhibit P8(a) order was never served on him and had been returned unclaimed to the respondents.

3. A criminal case had been registered against the petitioner on the very same allegations raised against him in Exhibit P1 charge sheet. By Exhibit P9 judgment dated 21.11.2011, the Special Judge (SPE/CBI), Ernakulam acquitted the petitioner of the charges framed. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred a review petition before the Bank. However, it is contended in Exhibit P10 that the Bank did not receive the review petition preferred by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred Exhibit P11 application before the Bank relying on the findings contained in Exhibit P9 judgment and seeking orders reinstating him in service with consequential benefits. By Exhibit P12 order dated 8.6.2012, the request was rejected. A copy of Exhibit P8(a) order passed in the review was sent to the petitioner along with Exhibit P12. It was stated that the acquittal in the criminal case does not have any bearing on the decision reached in the departmental proceedings, since the proceedings stand on a different footing. Exhibit P11 review was, therefore, rejected. The petitioner has again preferred Exhibit P13 representation before the respondents which remained unattended.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a mere reading of Exhibit P9 order of acquittal would go to show that the petitioner has been honourably acquitted of all the charges levelled against him in the criminal case. It is further contended that charges in the criminal case as well as in the disciplinary proceedings were substantially the same. The learned counsel placed reliance on the concluding part of Exhibit P9 judgment to contend that the acquittal was...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT