Madras High Court )S.R.Perumal vs )Sumithra on 3 November, 2020 CRL.OP(MD)No.11811 of 2020 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.11.2020 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU CRL.O.P(MD)No.11811 of 2020 and CRL.M.P(MD).No.5413 of 2020 1)S.R.Perumal 2)Annakamu ... Petitioners vs. 1)Sumithra 2)Minor Sanjay Ramasamy 3)Minor Santhose (The 1st respondent is the natural guardian of 2nd and 3rd respondents) ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for records relating to the complaint in D.V.M.C.No.2/2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Aundipatti, quash the same in so far as petitioner's concern. For petitioner :Mr.C.Susi Kumar For respondents :Mr.T.Govindasamy ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders issued by the second respondent/ Zonal Manager in Ref.Zo.IR:393 dated 22.11.2012 and his consequential proceedings dated 30.01.2013 and 02.04.2013 and for a direction to the second respondent to release forthwith all the service 1/21 http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.OP(MD)No.11811 of 2020 benefits which the petitioner is legally entitled to. 2.Gist of the case of the petitioner is as follows: Originally, the petitioner joined as Clerk on 19.05.1968 in the Foreign Exchange Department in the Bank of India and by dint of hardwork, he rose to the rank of Officer and he retired on 30.04.2003. When the petitioner was working at Sowcarpet Branch in Chennai, he was placed under suspension from service between 22.02.1982 and 15.06.1983 alleging that he involved in certain irregularities in Foreign Exchange dealing along with one M.R.Natarajan, the Foreign Exchange Dealer cum Officer in Charge, when he was working in Madras Main Branch and caused loss to the bank to the tune of Rs.6,22,282.48/ by fabricating documents. According to him, the Bank, without conducting any domestic enquiry, referred the matter for CBI enquiry. Neither any charge memo nor any departmental proceedings were initiated. The Central Bureau of Investigation registered a case against the petitioner and the said Natarajan, and the case was tried in C.C.No.6 of 1997 by the Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai. By an order, dated 03.01.2003, the Court of Principal Special Judge for CBI cases dismissed the case and acquitted both the petitioner and the said Natarajan. 2.1. It is further averred that prior to suspension, the petitioner was promoted to scaleII with effect from 01.04.1981. However, the promotion was kept in 2/21 http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.OP(MD)No.11811 of 2020 abeyance due to the pendency of the case. Similarly, the petitioner was denied all further promotions, increments and upgradation, till the date of the retirement because of the pendency of the case. The petitioner was also not awarded Milestone Award, which an employee is entitled to get on completion of 25 years of service. Hence, the petitioner made a representation to the second respondent on 07.02.2003 requesting him to sanction all the benefits, as he was acquitted of all charges. On the advice of the second respondent, the petitioner made separate representations with regard to each claim on 17.04.2003 through the Chief