IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3475 of 2006 MANNULAL PRASAD Versus CANARA BANK & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Satya Prakash Srivastava For the respondents: Mr. Siddhartha Prasad ------- 03. 06/08/2008 Vide order dated 29.9.2004 petitioner has been reinstated in service after his acquittal in a criminal case. But this order of reinstatement contained in Annexure-2 states that the period when the petitioner stood dismissed from 10.8.1996 till his reporting to the Bank shall not be treated as spent on duty. It also states that the petitioner shall not be entitled for back wages and salary nor shall he be entitled to arrears of salary and increments on account of revision of salary during this period. In the counter affidavit which has been filed it is stated that petitioner was never dismissed, he was only suspended. There are implications of both but the Court need not delve into the details of it because of the question which has been raised by the petitioner. The law is well settled in such matters. The Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, AIR 1997 SC 1802, has categorically held in para-3 of the decision that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service on the post and position which he was holding at the time of his suspension/dismissal due to the criminal case but he shall not be entitled to back wages. In view of the above decision the stand of the respondents in this regard seems - 2 - to be in conformity with the law but the Court has reservation on the other two clauses. With regard to the power of the bank to treat the period in question as not spent on duty is surely vested in the management. But then, this decision cannot be taken unilaterally by the Bank without giving opportunity to the petitioner. A unilateral decision taken by the bank has civil consequences for the petitioner and no decision of the kind can be taken without offering him opportunity of hearing. In view of the above, the said order only to that extent is quashed with liberty to the Bank to issue notice to the petitioner, give him the right of hearing and then decide the issue. The other issue that the petitioner shall not be entitled to back wages and arrears of salary on account of revision of salary etc. may be redundant because if the petitioner is held not to be entitled to back wages and salary for the period he was dismissed till he was reinstated then obviously he loses even the revised pay etc. in the meantime but it does not mean that this period can be treated as break in service for other benefits. The writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated above. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)