IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RP.No. 544 of 2007() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WA.1766/2002 Dated 26/07/2005 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT ------------------------------------------------- THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, ZONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REP.BY DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- P.I.BABU, PUTHENPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, KOOTHATTUKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.M. JOSEPH, JJ. -------------------------------------------- C.M.APPLN. 227/07 IN RP 544 OF 2007 & R.P.No. 544/2007 in W.A.No.1766/2002 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of November, 2008 O R D E R Ramachandran Nair,J. Respondent, who was a manager of the petitioner-Bank was dismissed from service for irregularities committed by him in service. Besides disciplinary proceedings he was prosecuted by the CBI which ended up in conviction. Much before completion of prosecution, the Bank initiated disciplinary proceedings which led to dismissal of the respondent. When the respondent filed Writ Petition before this Court challenging the disciplinary proceedings, this Court found that proceedings completed were not proper or fair and therefore the Bank was directed to reconsider the matter against which Bank filed Writ Appeal which was disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 26.7.2005. When Writ Appeal came up for hearing before this Court, it was brought to the notice of the Court that prosecution ended up in conviction and sentence on the respondent. Therefore this Court held 2 that conviction and sentence in the criminal case by itself will be a ground for dismissal from service and so much so findings in disciplinary proceedings independently initiated and concluded was of no consequence. Accordingly Writ Appeal was closed holding that dismissal already ordered can be treated as a dismissal based on such conviction. The respondent took the stand that pursuant to the judgment of the Division Bench fresh disciplinary proceedings should have been initiated by the Bank and since Bank did not do so, contempt petition was filed, which was dismissed by this Court. 2. Bank has filed this Review Petition because respondent claimed salary till date of conviction based on the Division Bench judgment. We feel a petition to clarify the judgment would have been sufficient to sort out the controversy. Review Petition in any case is filed by the Bank only because of claim of salary by the respondent based on the Division Bench judgment. Therefore the delay in filing the Review Petition is explained and we accordingly condone the delay. 3. As already stated all what this Court has held in the judgment 3 is that conviction by the criminal court for misappropriation is sufficient ground for dismissal and so much so after conviction the same will substitute ground for dismissal already effected. In other words, it was in the least contemplation of the Court that dismissal will take effect from the date of conviction. We clarify judgment to the effect that dismissal will have additional ground that is conviction in criminal case to sustain it. However, if that ground goes, that is only if conviction and sentence is set aside in appeal, it will be open to the Bank to file Review Petition as and when it happens. Therefore this Review Petition is closed without considering the Review Petition on merits, but clarifying judgment as above and leaving freedom to the Review Petitioner to file fresh RP if situation arises. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge. kk 4