IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 30072 of 2003(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.RADHAKRISHNAN, (58622), PEON-CUM-DRIVER, CANARA BANK, MANJERI BRANCH, RESIDING AT KARUTHEDATH HOUSE, POORATHUKKAL POST, VIA. AREECODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.MOHAMED ALI, ADV. SRI.M.A.T.PAI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, DISCIPLINARY ACTION CELL, CIRCLE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, CANARA BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.SEN, SC. SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN, SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.30072/2003-E: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION NO. TAC-2078/T.37/EJ DTD. 18/09/95 ISSUED BY R.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN S.C. 178/97 DTD. 25/06/98 OF THE DDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE, KOZHIKODE. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R.1. DTD. 20/07/98. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. TAC/3035/T. 37/EJ DTD. 07/10/98 ISSUED BY R.1. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R1. DTD. 07/11/98. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. TAC/1240/T.37/EJ.DTD. 08/02/99 ISSUED BY R.1. EXT.P.7:C OP, REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R.3. DTD. 04/05/99. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE REPLY NO. TAC/2434/T.37/GT DTD. 10/07/1999 ISSUED BY R.1. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE SENT BY PETITIONER'S COUNSEL TO RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 DTD. 07/06/2003. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER TO EXT.P.9 ISSUED BY ASST. GENERAL MANAGER ON 27/06/03. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 30072 OF 2003 E -------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an employee of the respondent Bank. He was placed under suspension. The reason for suspension was a criminal case under Section 376 IPC, and that the petitioner surrendered before the Court and he was remanded for fifteen days. By Ext.P2 Judgment, petitioner came to be acquitted of the charge under the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, petitioner preferred Ext.P3 representation. On the basis of the same, by Ext.P4, the Deputy General Manager proceeded to reinstate the petitioner, but ordered that the period of suspension shall be treated as one spent "Not On Duty" and shall not be reckoned for any purpose whatsoever and the increment for the period of suspension shall not be released. Petitioner preferred Extgs.P5 and P7 representations. He also preferred lawyer notice vide Ext.P9. Thereafter, Ext.P10 reply was issued to Ext.P9 lawyer notice by the Assistant General Manager rejecting the claim for WPC. 30072/03 E 2 back wages and consequential benefits. The main relief sought for in the Writ Petition is as follows: "(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to disburse full back wages, increments and consequential benefits to the petitioner during the period of his suspension viz. 20.7.1995 to 17.10.1998 treating the period as duty." 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was placed under suspension on the basis of the criminal case alone, but he was acquitted of the charge against him and he was reinstated by the respondent Bank. It is stated that the Bank has erred and committed illegality in not paying the back wages for the period he was placed under suspension. 3. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Bank would point out that the Bank had nothing to do with the criminal case. Petitioner came to be proceeded against on the basis of the registration of the crime case by the WPC. 30072/03 E 3 police. It is further submitted that in another case, a learned Judge of the Karnataka High Court (as His Lordship then was) had upheld the action of the Bank in similar circumstances in respect of the same Bank. He also relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. The Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar, Gujarat (1997 (II) LLJ 683). The decision of the Apex Court related to a case where the employee came to be convicted. The Bank has reinstated him pursuant to the direction of the High Court. The view taken was that the claim for back wages has to be considered only if the employer has taken disciplinary proceedings and such proceedings were found to be unsustainable in law. Even though strictly speaking, the facts may not be the same, the principle appears to be apposite. Here also, the Bank was not responsible for the criminal case. The suspension followed the criminal case lodged by the police authorities. In such circumstances, when the Bank ordered suspension and the employee did not do the work, the employee WPC. 30072/03 E 4 was not entitled to back wages. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.