HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.22709 of 1999 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 21.01.1999, as confirmed by the second respondent, by his order dated 29.06.1999, and to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that she studied upto 5th Class and joined as a Sweeper on 19.06.1992 in the Indian Bank at Darulshufa, Hyderabad. While so, the petitioner was involved in a criminal case, along with several others, in Crime No.123 of 1994, for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with 120-B IPC, which was subsequently numbered as C.C.No. 131 of 1996 before the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The petitioner states that, on the oral instructions of the then Branch Manager of the respondent-Bank, she went to the police station on 15.07.1994 and was arrested and remanded to the judicial custody on 16.07.1994 and was released on bail on 19.07.1994. The criminal case ended in acquittal. Simultaneously, disciplinary proceedings were also initiated on the ground that she did not intimate her arrest and that she was not one Bharathi Bai and impersonated her and obtained employment. Subsequent to her acquittal, the respondents did not reinstate her into service and, therefore, she filed W.P.No.11514 of 1998 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 09.09.1998 directing the respondent- Bank to reinstate her into service with all consequential benefits. However, the respondent-Bank filed W.A.No.1565 of 1997 which was disposed of on 07.11.1997 directing the first respondent to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a period of eight weeks. Thereafter, the first respondent, by his order 21.01.1999, confirmed the order of removal of the petitioner from the services of the respondent-Bank. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had filed an appeal to the second respondent and the said appeal was dismissed on 29.06.1999. Hence the writ petition. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the respondent-Bank stating that a complaint was received on 16.10.1992, wherein it was clearly mentioned against the name of the petitioner as ‘Padma’ and not ‘Bharathi Bai’ and, therefore, action was initiated. It is further stated that the police launched prosecution against the petitioner and she was chargesheeted for the following charges: i. You were arrested on 15.07.1994 at 1.00 P.M. and remanded to judicial custody on 16.07.1994. ii. You are released from Jail on 19.07.1994 on bail. iii. You are not Mrs. Bharathi Bai W/o. Balaiah for whom the appointment order was issued as part-time sweeper in our bank. iv. You have impersonated as Bharathi Bai and secured employment in Indian Bank by misrepresentation with false school certificate, false employment card. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the criminal case filed against the petitioner on the aforesaid charges ended in acquittal and, subsequently, the departmental enquiry was conducted and she was removed from service. Absolutely, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner had impersonated one Bharathi Bai and she was not Bharathi Bai and was Padma. No person from the school wherefrom the fifth class certificate was produced was examined. It is also not known on what basis the petitioner was found guilty in the departmental proceedings purporting to have impersonated the said Bharathi Bai. None of the police officers were examined in this regard, who purported to have launched criminal prosecution against her. Even, it cannot be said that the petitioner had suppressed the factum of her arrest and her release from jail since the Branch Manager of the respondent-bank himself on 15.07.1994 had instructed her to go to the police station where she was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and was released on bail on 19.07.1994. Therefore, it must be deemed that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the petitioner is not Bharathi Bai and is Padma as per the complaint received from the police station by the respondent-Bank. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is a case where the petitioner was harassed without there being any evidence whatsoever and her services were terminated with effect from 21.01.1999 by the first respondent, which was confirmed by the appellate authority by his order dated 29.06.1999. For the above reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The respondent-Bank is directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith with continuity of service and attendant benefits. However, the petitioner is not entitled for any backwages. No order as to costs. C.V. RAMULU, J Date 19.07.2010 usd