IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17820 of 2011 Brajendra Nath Tripathi, son of Late Jang Bahadur Tripathi, resident of village – Chandwa, P.S.- Arrah, Nawadah, District – Bhojpur ……………… Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through its Chairman having his central Office at Madam Cama Road, Mumbai 2. The Chief General Manager State Bank of India, Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna 3. The General Manager (N.W.) and Appointing Authority State Bank of India, Vigilance Department Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna ………………. Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the SBI: Mr. Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate **************** 04. 22.12.2011 Annexure-1 is the Order, dated 14th of February, 2008 by virtue of which the Respondent-State Bank of India in exercise of the so called provision of section 10 (1) (b) (i) of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 read with Rule 68 (7) (i) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rule, discharged the petitioner from service on the basis of his conviction in a criminal offence. The foundation for issuance of the impugned order, contained in Annexure – 1, is the judgment dated 04.05.2007 in respect of Special Case No. 3 of 1982, which was registered as R.C. Case No. 1 of 1982. Petitioner was said to be a Head Cashier, who was tried by the Special Judge for certain acts of indiscretion in the matter of sanction of agricultural loan. Petitioner was supposed to be one of the persons involved in the said transaction alongwith some other employees. The Court is not required to go into the factual 2 aspect of the matter looking at the limited question of law, which has been raised on behalf of the petitioner due to subsequent development, which has happened in the present case. After conviction and passing of the order of discharge, petitioner moved the High Court in appeal, which was Criminal Appeal No. 525 of 2007. The appeal of the petitioner was heard with yet another accused, namely, Raj Kumar Darolia and judgment of the Learned Single Judge was rendered on 12th of July, 2011. The Learned Single Judge concludes as under: “In the facts of this case and in view of the discussions aforesaid, the order, dated 04.05.2007 passed in Special Case No. 3/1982 imposing sentence on the appellants is set aside. The appeals are allowed.” Submission, therefore, is that once the petitioner has been acquitted by the Appellate Court, there is no taint for him to carry with regard to the set of charges or allegation whatever may be the decision of the Trial Court in this regard. Acquittal of the petitioner by the Appellate Court restored his credibility, if not his dignity, on the issue of his misconduct or an aberration of the criminal kind. From perusal of Annexure- 1, it is evident that dismissal of the petitioner was on the solitary ground that he stood convicted by the Criminal Court of Special Judge CBI, North Bihar. It is not the case of the respondents that petitioner was proceeded departmentally and based on the said outcome the discharge order was issued in Annexure- 1. If conviction was the solitary ground for dismissal, 3 then allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of conviction of the Trial Court, surely puts the petitioner back to the status which he had prior to his conviction or discharge order passed by the Respondent-Bank. In opposition, counsel for the State Bank of India comes out with an innovative submission that the appeal of the petitioner has been allowed on technicality and, therefore, it is no exoneration of the charges of the petitioner so far as his misconduct is concerned. Yet another submission is that the State Bank of India has no mechanism or rule in existence by virtue of which such an order can be recalled and, therefore, once the order has been issued the order will have to be sustained and will operate against the petitioner. The third contention of the counsel is that since the petitioner is entitled to receive all post-retirement dues as petitioner has superannuated on 30th of April, 2008, therefore, quashing the order does not make any substantive or substantial difference to the overall status of the petitioner. All the contentions and submissions of the counsel for the State Bank of India are fit to be rejected for many a reasons. No. (1) Law is about technicality, therefore, even if on technicality, the Learned Single Judge of the High Court set aside the order of conviction, the petitioner no longer legally remains either a convict much less an accused. There is nothing reflected from the record including the decision rendered by the Learned Single Judge that petitioner has been let-off by giving him benefit of doubt. If that be so, then acquittal of the petitioner would be 4 treated to be a clean acquittal and that by itself is an answer to the first contention of the counsel for the State Bank of India. So far as second contention is concerned the Court opines that an illegal order passed by an authority can be recalled or modified in view of the declaration of law made by a Court. If they had to power to pass order of discharge based on conviction of the petitioner by the Trial Court then surely this Court holds that they also had power to recall that order after the petitioner was acquitted by the Appellate Court. The logic of such submission is not understood or appreciated by this Court. So far as the third contention of the counsel for the respondents is concerned, anyway after the acquittal of the petitioner, petitioner begets a right to claim benefit which he was entitled to prior to his discharge. The State Bank of India is not doing any favour by extending the gesture by paying him retiral benefit or other dues which the petitioner is entitled to as a matter of right. In fact, the Court comes to a considered opinion that there seems to be a concerted effort on the part of the State Bank to over-reach the decision of the Learned Single Judge of the High Court by denying the benefit of such decision in one way or the other by taking such extreme positions which do not find support from any legal proposition or ground. Writ Application is allowed. Annexure- 1, dated 14th of February, 2008 is quashed. The petitioner would be treated to have been not dismissed or discharged based on conviction in view of the Order of the High Court, contained in Annexure – 2. All 5 benefits therefrom shall accrue to the petitioner. Let the consequences flaw within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this Order. SKM (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)