SUSHILA TIWARY AND OTHERSversusALLAHABAD BANK AND OTHERS

                    [2012] 6 S.C.R. 561


             SUSHILA TIWARY AND OTHERS                             A
                              v.
            ALLAHABAD BANK AND OTHERS
              (Civil Appeal No.5224 of 2012)
                       JULY 16, 2012
                                                                   B
         [G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI
                 MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.)

    SERVICE LAW:
                                                                   c
     Termination from service - Bank employee - Served
charge-sheets and also prosecuted in criminal case -
Conviction by trial court - Employee terminated from service
- Acquittal by appellate court on benefit of doubt - Employee
placed under suspension, and on conclusion of the inquiry,         0
his services terminated - Held: In the instant case, Clause
19.3(d) of Bi-Partite Settlement, 1966 is applicable - Clause
19.3(d) read along with N<;>tice dated 2. 7.2001, makes it clear
that the employee stood reinstated w.e.f. 21. 7.1999, i.e. the
date on which he was originally dismissed from service, and        E
deemed to be continuing under suspension since then and,
as such, was entitled to subsistence allowance and not the full
pay and allowances - Bi-partite Settlement, 1966 - Clause
19.3(c), 19.3(d), 19.5(d) and 19.5(j).

     The husband of appellant no. 1, who was in the                F
employment of the respondent Bank, was charge-sheeted
by the Bank for certain acts of omission and commission
and was also prosecuted before the criminal court. The
trial court convicted him ulss 468 and 477-A, IPC and
sentenced him to RI for one year each under both the               G
counts. Consequently, the employee was terminated from
service by order dated 21.7.1999. He filed an appeal
against his conviction, and the appellate court acquitted
him giving him the benefit of doubt. The Bank ordered on
                           561                                     H
    562      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A 2.7.2001 that the employee would be deemed to have
  been placed under suspension w.e.f. 21.7.1999. The
  charges against the employee were found proved and,
  ultimately, by order dated 1~.6.2003, his services were
  terminated. During the pendency of the writ petition filed
                                             1

B by the employee, he died and hi~ legal heirs were
  substituted. The single Judge dismissed the writ petition
  and the Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the
  legal heirs.

          In the instant appeal, it was contended for the
C appellants that without reinstating the employee no
    departmental inquiry could be initiated and further, in
    view of Clause 19.3(c) of the Bi-partite Settlement, 1996,
    he was entitled to full pay and allowances minus the
    subsistence for the period of suspension.
D
          Dismissing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1.1 Clause 19.3(c) of the Bi-Partite Settlement,
  1966 applies to the cases where the employee is
E acquitted during the trial. On the other hand, Clause
  19.3(d) applies to the cases where the convicted
  employee prefers an appeal or revision application
  against his conviction and is acquitted. Under Clause
  19.3(d) if an employee applies to the management for
  reconsideration of his case on acquittal, the management
F is required to review his case and may either reinstate
  him or proceed against him under the provisions set in
  Clauses 19.11 and 19.12 relating to discharge, the period
  up-to-date for which full pay and allowances have not
  been paid being treated as one of suspension. [para 13]
G [568-F-G]

      1.2 In the instant case, the employee was convicted
  and sentenced by the trial court u/ss 468 and 477-A IPC.
  He was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt in the
H criminal appeal. In such case, he was liable to be
      SUSHILA TIWARY v. ALLAHABAD BANK                    563


proceeded under Clause 19.3(d). The appellants cannot             A
derive of the benefit of Clause 19.3(c) [para 14] [569-A-B]

    1.3 If Clause 19.3(d) is read along with the notice
dated 2.7.2001, it is clear that the employee stood
reinstated w.e.f. 21.7.1999, i.e., the date on which he was       B
originally dismissed from service and deemed to be
continuing under suspension since then. This Court,
therefore, holds that he was entitled for subsistence
allowance and not the full pay and allowances. There is
no illegality in the order of termination or the orders           C
passed by the single Judge and the Division Bench of
the High Court. [para 15-16] [569-E-G]

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5224 of 2012.
                                                                  D
    From the Judgment & Order dated 03.05.2010 of the High
Court of Patna in LP.A. No. 762 of 2010.

    Mohit Kumar Shah for the AppeHants.

   Dhruv Mehta, Yashraj Singh Deera, Rajesh Kumar, Shri           E
Ram Krishna for the Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
    SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOf>ADHAYA, J. 1. Delay
condoned. Leave granted.·                                         F
     2. This appeal has been pre~erred by the Legal Heirs of
the original writ petitioner, Shri Ravindra Nath Tiwary
(hereinafter referred to as "Shri Tiwary") against the judgment
dated 3rd May, 2010 passed by the Division Bench of the           G
Patna High Court in LP.A. No.762 of 2010, whereby the
Division Bench dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order
passed by the learned Single Judge wherein the order of
termination passed against Shri Tiwary was affirmed.
    3. Appellant No.1, Sushila Tiwary is the wife and appellant   H
    564      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012) 6 S.C.R.


A   Nos.2 to 5, Rajesh, Priyanjali, Sudhansu and Himanshu are the
    sons and daughter of Shri Tiwary.
       4. Shri Tiwary was working as Special Assistant in the
  Allahabad Bank, Arah Branch(hereinafter referred to as "the
  Bank"). He was suspended on 11th June, 1990 for certain acts
B of omission and commission and proceeded departmentally
  under Clause 19.5(d) and 19.5.(j) of the first Bi-partite
  Settlement 1966. Two charge-sheets dated 30th June, 1990
  and 13th October, 1990 were served on him. The Bank also
  decided simultaneously to prosecute Shri Tiwary in a criminal
C case for the criminal act and lodged an FIR with the Arah Police
  Station. After trial Shri Tiwary was convicted in the criminal case
  on 19th April, 1999 by the Sub-Divisional Judicial
  Magistrate(SDJM), Bhojpur. He was ordered to undergo RI for
  one year for the offence punishable under Section 468 IPC and
D RI for one year for the offence punishable under Section 477(A)
  IPC.
       5. In view of the conviction in the criminal case, the
  Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Patna, who was
E the disciplinary authority, by invoking provisions of Clause
  19.6(a) of the Bi-partite Settlement, 1966 dismissed Shri
  Tiwary from the services of the Bank by order No.8/99 dated
  21st July, 1999 after giving opportunity of personal hearing to
  Shri Tiwary.
F       Against the order of conviction Shri Tiwary preferred an
  appeal in the Court of the Additional District and Sessions
  Judge, Bhojpur, who by judgment dated 6th February, 2000,
  after giving benefit of doubt, had acquitted Shri Tiwary from the
  charges. After the acquittal Shri Tiwary approached the Bank
G and informed that he has been acquitted in criminal case by
  the Appellate Court. The Bank on receipt of such intimation,
  invoked Clause 19.3(c) of the Bi-partite Settlement and by
  order No.1/126 dated 2nd July, 2001 ordered that Shri Tiwary
  will be deemed to have been placed under suspension from
H the date of original order of dismissal, i.e., 21st July, 1999 and
                                                                            II
                                                                                 !

             SUSHILA TIWARY v. ALLAHABAD BANK .                 565
            [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
 __ shall continue to remain under suspension until further order. It A
- - was -further ordered that during the period of suspension he will
    be entitled to subsistence allowance.on the same-scale as was
    getting just prior to his dismissal dated 21st July.'1999. The
    Assistant General Manager, Regional Office,· Patna who was.
    the disciplinariauthority brought the aforesaid facts to the notice B   ·i
    of Shri Tiwary and informed that his Headquarters has been               I
    fixed at Arah. -···

    1    6. In the departmental enquiry, Shri Tiwary did not choose
   to participate. Once, he appeared before the Enquiry Officer
   but later on he again absented and refusedto appear. Shri C
   Tiwary moved before the.Patna High Court against the order·
   of suspension and revival of departmental -proceedings by filing -
   a writ petition, C.W.J.C. No.11479 of 2001. In the said writ
   petition, in view of the statement made· on behal(of the Bank
   that 'the departmental enquiry has already been criricluded and D
   the Enquiry Officer has already submitted the report, Shri Trwary
   withdrew the writ petition on 5th March, 2003 with liberty to raise.
   all the pleas, in case, ttie order of disciplinary authority goes
   adverse to him. - , · _ -~ - ·. _
        \                  '
                                                 ·   ·            -

     , 7. The disciplinary authority noticed that ShrL Tiwary          E
   refused to appear before the Enquiry Officer and'rernained
   absent. Th,erefore, the· En9uiry Officer had to submit ex parte
   reports on 3rd September, 2002 and 9th September, 2002
   separately, for the two ~different chargesheets. In both the
   departmental proceedings all the charges against Shri TiwaiY        F:
   were found true. ln--this background, a second show-cause
   notice was issued to Shri Tiwary by the disciplinary authority
   by order dated 31st March, 2003 and it was proposed as to
   why his ser.lices be not terminated by paying three months' pay
   arid allowances in terms of Clause 3(d) of the Memorandum           G
   of Settlement dated 10th April, 2002. Shri Tiwary was advised
   to appear in person with or without his Defence Representative
   before the disciplinary authority, the Assistant General Manager,
   Regional Office, Patna for personal hearing on 16th May, 2003.
   Pursuant to such notice, Shri Tiwary appeared before the            H
    566     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A disciplinary authority on 16th May, 2003 with his Defence
  Representative. The objections as raised by him were recorded
  by the disciplinary authority and after going through the
  chargesheets, Enquiry Repots and the objections raised by
  Shri Tiwary the disciplinary authority terminated the services of
B Shri Tiwary by order dated 16th June, 2003.
        8. Against the order of termination, Shri Tiwary filed the writ
  petition before the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.12429 of
  2005. During the pendency of the said writ petition before the
  learned Single Judge, Shri Tiwary died and was substituted by
C his Legal Heirs. After hearing the parties, learned Single Judge
  by judgment dated 3rd September, 2008 taking into
  consideration the gravity of charges and the fact that the amount
  which was alleged to be embezzled was deposited by Shri
  Tiwary with the Bank, pursuant to the order of this Court dated ..
D 8th July, 2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 1019 of 2008, refused
  to entertain the writ petition and dismissed the same. The
  Division Bench of the Patna High Court affirmed the said
  decision and dismissed the LP.A. by the impugned judgment.
E       9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
  herein submitted that without reinstating the original writ
  petitioner, no departmental enquiry could be initiated. Further,
  in view of Clause 19.3(c), the original writ petitioner was entitled
  to full pay and allowances minus the subsistence allowance and
F all other privileges for the period of suspension whi~h was
  denied to him.
       It was further contended by the learned counsel for the
  appellants that the High Court ought to have considered that
  the departmental enquiry had been conducted and concluded
G ex parte, hence in all probability, it would have been fair enough
  to grant at least one more opportunity to the legal heirs of the
  delinquent to participate in the departmental enquiry and prove
  the innocence of the delinquent. It was also contended that the
  High Court ought to have considered that the impugned order
H of dismissal is void, having been passed without their being
       SUSHILA TIWARY v. ALLAHABAD BANK                      567
      [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
any master and servant relationship existing at the time of          A
passing of the order against the delinquent in absence of order
of reinstatement.
      10. Per contra, according to the learned counsel appearing
for the respondents, in view of order dated 2nd July, 2001 Shri      B
Tiwary was deemed to have been reinstated and in terms of
Clause 19.3(d) Shri Tiwary was deemed to be on duty of the
Bank from the date order of suspension was issued.

     11. We have considered the respective submissions and
also perused the relevant pro.visions of Bi-partite Settlement.      c
      12. 'The disciplinary action and procedure' of the Bank are
guided by Chapter 19 of Bi-partite Settlement, 1966. As per
Clause 19.3(b), if an employee of the Bank is convicted in a
criminal case, such employee may be dismissed from service
from the date of his conviction or may be inflicted with lesser      D
form of punishment depending on gravity of charges. Clauses
19.3(c) and 19.3(d) relate to action which is to be taken by the
disciplinary authority, in case an employee is acquitted during
the trial or pursuant to an order passed in an appeal or revision.
Relevant Clause 19.3(c) and Clause 19.3(d) read as follows:          E
     "19.3(c) If he be acquitted, it shall be open to the
     management to proceed against him under the provisions
     set out below in Clauses 19.11 and 19.12 infra relating to
     discharges. However, in the event of the management
                                                                     F
     deciding after enquiry not to continue him in service, he
     shall be liable only for termination of service with three
     months' pay and allowances in lieu of notice. And he shall
     be deemed to have been on duty during the period of
     suspension, if any, and shall be entitled to the full pay and
     allowances minus such subsistence allowances as he has          G
     drawn and to all other privile·ges for the period of
     suspension provided that he be acquitted by being given
     the benefit of doubt he may be paid such portion of such
     pay and allowances as the management may deem
     proper, and the period of his absence shall not be treated      H
    568       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A         as a period spent on duty unless the management so
          direct.

          19.3(d) If he prefers an appeal or revision application
          against his conviction and is acquitted; in case he had
          already been dealt with as above and he applies to the
8         management for reGonsideration of his case, the
          management shall review his case and may either
          reinstate him or proceed against him under the provisions
          set below in Clauses 19.11 and 19.12 infra relating to .
          discharge, and the provision set out above as to pay,
c         allowances and the period of suspension will apply, the
          period upto date for which full pay and allowances have
          not been drawn being treated as one of suspension. In the
          event of the management deciding, after enquiry not to
          continue him in service, the employee shall be liable only
D         for termination with three months' pay and allowance in lieu
          of notice, as directed above."
        13. The above reproduced provisions represent the
  intention of the Bank and the Union to determine as to what
E steps the disciplinary authority requires to take in case an
  employee who is accused in a criminal case is acquitted during
  the trial or such employee after conviction is subsequently
  acquitted in an appeal or revision. Clause 19.3(c) applies to
  the cases where the employee is acquitted during the trial. On
  the other hand, Clause 19.3(d) applies to the cases where the
F convicted employee prefers an appeal or revision application
  against his conviction and is acquitted. Under Clause 19.3(d)
  if an employee applies to the management for reconsideration
  of his case on acquittal, the management is required to review
  his case and may either reinstate him or proceed against him
G under the provisions set in Clauses 19.11 and 19.12 relating
  to discharge, the period up-to-date for which full pay and
  allowances have not been paid being treated as one of
  suspension. In the event of management deciding, after enquiry,
  not to continue in service, the employee shall be liable only for
H
         SUSHILA TIWARY v. ALLAHABAD BANK                     569
        [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
-termination with three months' pay and allowances in lieu of A
•notice.
     14. Reverting to the facts of this case, we find that Shri
 Tiwary was acquitted during the trial for the offence under
 Section 468 IPC and Section 477 (A) IPC and was ordered to B
 undergo RI for one year each for both the Sections. He was
 acquitted by giving benefit of doubt in the criminal appeal. In
 such case, Shri Tiwary was liable to be proceeded under
 Clause 19.3(d) and, thereby, the appellants cannot derive of the
 benefit of Clause 19.3(c) of the Bi-partite Settlement.
                                                                     c
     The disciplinary authority by its notice dated 2nd July, 2001
 passed the following order:
      "As such, it is ordered that Shri Tiwary will be deemed to
      have been placed under' suspension from the date of
      original order of dismissal i.e. 21.07.1999 and shall D
      continue to remain under suspension until further order.
      During the period of suspension, he will be entitled to
      subsistence allowance on the same scale as he was
      getting just before his dismissal on 21.07.1999."
                                                                      E
      15. If Clause 19.3(d) is read along with the notice dated
 2nd July, 2001, it is clear that Shri Tiwary stood reinstated w.e.f.
 21st July, 1999, i.e., the date on which he was originally
 dismissed from service and deemed to be continuing under
 suspension since then. For the said reasons, the stand taken F
 by the appellants that Shri Tiwary was not reinstated before the
 departmental proceedings is fit to be rejected and we hold that
 he was entitled for subsistence allowance and not the full pay
 and allowances as called for.
      16. We find no illegality in the order of termination or orders G
 passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench
 of the Patna High Court. They do not call for any interference.
 In absence of any merit, the appeal is dismissed but there shall
 be no order as to costs.
 R.P.                                        Appeal dismissed.       H