http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5826 of 2007

PETITIONER: General Manager, UCO Bank and Anr

RESPONDENT: M. Venuranganath

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/12/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & AFTAB ALAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5826 OF 2007 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.23654 of 2004)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Leave granted.

2.      Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment of a Division  Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the writ  appeal filed by the respondent.

3.      Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The respondent, who, at the relevant point of time was  Branch Manager of appellant No.l-Bank and was posted at  Nellore in Andhra Pradesh was charged and tried along with  one Shrinivasulu s/o Chenchuramaiah for offences  punishable under Sections 120-B, 471 and 477 of Indian  Penal Code 1860 (in short the ’the IPC’) and Section 5(2) read  with Section 5 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947  (in short the ’Prevention of Corruption Act’). Both the accused  persons were tried in the Court of Special Judge for CBI cases.  They were acquitted by judgment dated 11.12.2002 giving  them benefit of doubt. The respondent was placed under  suspension from 15.06.1988 till he was reinstated on  04.05.1993. After his reinstatement, departmental proceedings  were initiated. The same were questioned by a writ petition  being writ Petition No.15797 of 1994 which was allowed by  learned Single Judge. But in writ appeal No.884 of 1998, a  Division Bench directed dismissal of the writ petition. The  departmental enquiry was concluded on 29.02.2003. The  respondent was found guilty. So far as payment of salary,  allowances etc. are concerned, relevant portion of the order  read as follows: "In the light of the above punishment the  undersigned further directs that Sri M. Venu  Ranganath will not be entitled to any salary  and allowances and other attendant- benefits  including increment for the period spent by  him under suspension, save and except the  Subsistence Allowance already paid to him  during the said period."

3.      The respondent filed writ petition being Writ Petition  No.11615 of 1994 claiming pay and allowances for the period  of suspension which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

Respondent filed Writ Appeal No.685 of 2004 which was  allowed by the impugned order. It was inter-alia held by the  Division Bench that C1ause-22 of the applicable Manual i.e. A  Manual on Disciplinary Action and Related Matters of UCO  Bank governed the case and not Regulation 15(2) of the United  Commercial Bank (Conduct and Discipline and Appeal)  Regulation, 1976. 4.      According to learned counsel for the appellants, the  Division Bench was not justified in holding that Clause 22(8)  of the Manual was to operate and not Regulation 15(2) of the  Regulation. It is stated that the Manual is nothing but  guidelines inducted and at the most, may be termed as  Executive Instructions. The Regulations are statutory in  mature.  5.      It is pointed out that acquittal in a criminal case has  nothing to do with departmental proceedings and law is clearly  well settled. Notwithstanding acquittal in a criminal case,  departmental proceedings can be initiated and/or continued.

6.      In response, learned counsel for the respondent  submitted that the factual position shows that the only time  respondent was placed under suspension was because of the  criminal case under Regulation 12(1)(b). Even though  departmental proceedings were initiated, the respondent was  never placed under suspension. According to her, the case  covered by Regulation 15(2) relates to cases not covered by  sub-Regulation (1).

7.      There can be no doubt that criminal proceedings and  departmental proceedings operate in different fields. Even  though the person may have been acquitted in a criminal trial,  there is no embargo on his being departmentally proceeded  against. But the question here is slightly different. The  relevant provisions need to be quoted:

"11.    Special procedure in certain cases:

Notwithstanding anything contained in  regulation 6 or regulation 7 or regulation 8 the  Disciplinary Authority may impose any of the  penalties specified in regulation 4 if the  officer/employee has been convicted on a  criminal charge, or on the strength of facts or  conclusions arrived at by a judicial trial."

Regulation 12: Suspension:

(1)     An officer employee may be placed under  suspension by the competent authority - (a)     where a disciplinary proceeding  against him is contemplated or is  pending; or (b)     where a case against him in respect  of any criminal offence is under  investigation, inquiry or trial.  (2)     An officer employee shall be deemed to  have been placed under suspension by an  order of the competent authority \026

(a)     with effect from the date of his  detention, if he is detained in  custody, whether on a criminal  charge or otherwise, for a period  exceeding forty-eighty hours; (b)     with effect from the date of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

conviction, if in the event of a  conviction for an offence, he is  sentenced to a term of  imprisonment exceeding forty-eight  hours and is not forthwith  dismissed or removed or  compulsorily retired consequent to  such conviction. Explanation :- The period of forty-eight hours  referred to in clause (b) of this sub-regulation  shall be computed from the commencement of  the imprisonment after the conviction and for  this purpose, intermittent periods of  imprisonment, if any, shall be taken into  account. (3)     Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or  compulsory retirement from service imposed  upon an officer employee under suspension is  set aside in appeal or on review under these  regulations and the case is remitted for further  inquiry or action or with any directions, the  order of his suspension shall be deemed to  have continued in force on and from the date  of the original order of dismissal, removal or  compulsory retirement and shall remain in  force until further orders. (4)     Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or  compulsorily retirement from service imposed  upon an officer employee under suspension is  set aside or declared or rendered void in  consequence of or by a decision of a court of  law, and the disciplinary authority, on  consideration of the circumstances of the case,  decides to hold further inquiry against him on  the allegations on which the penalty of  dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement  was originally imposed, the officer employee  shall be deemed to have been placed under  suspension by the competent authority from  the date of the original order of dismissal,  removal or compulsory retirement and shall  continue to remain under suspension until  further orders. (5)     (a)     An order of suspension made or  deemed to have been made under this  regulation shall continue to remain in  force until it is modified or revoked by the   authority competent to do so.         (b) An order of suspension made or  deemed to have been made under this  regulation may at any time be modified or  revoked by the authority which made or  is deemed to have made the order."    "Regulation 15: Pay allowances and treatment  of service on termination of suspension:

(1) Where the competent authority holds that  the officer employee has been fully exonerated  or that the suspension was unjustifiable, the  officer employee concerned shall be granted  the full pay to which he would have been  entitled had he not been suspended, together  with any allowance of which he was in receipt  immediately prior to his suspension, or may  have been sanctioned subsequently and made

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

applicable to all officer employees.

(2) In all cases other than those referred to in  sub-regulation (1), the officer employee shall  be granted such proportion of pay and  allowances as the Competent Authority may  direct; Provided that the payment of allowances  under this sub-regulation shall be subject to  all other conditions to which such allowances  are admissible:

Provided further that the pay and  allowances granted under this sub-regulation  shall not be less than the subsistence and  other allowances admissible under regulation  14.

3(a)    In a case falling under sub-regulation (1)  the period of absence from duty shall, for all  purposes, be treated as a period spent on duty;

(b)     In a case falling under sub-regulation (2),  the period of absence from duty shall not be  treated as a period spent on duty unless the  Competent Authority specifically directs, for  reason to be recorded in writing, that it shall  be so treated for any specific purpose." Clause 22.8 of the Manual       "Where a  suspended officer employee has been fully  exonerated in the departmental enquiry or  acquittal by the court of law of the charges  levelled against him the competent authority  holds that the suspension was unjustifiable,  he would be entitled to all benefits to which he  would have been normally entitled, had he  been on duty. However, the employee in such a  case would not be entitled to accumulate leave  beyond the permissible limit." 8.      A bare reading of Revelation 12 shows that suspension  can be directed under two circumstances. The first is where a  disciplinary proceeding against the concerned employee is  contemplated or is pending; and the second is where a case  against him in respect of any criminal offence is under  investigation, inquiry or trial. Undisputedly, the respondent  was placed under suspension under Regulation 12(i)(b).  Regulation 15 deals with two types of situations. As the  heading itself shows, it relates to pay and allowances and  termination of service on termination or suspension. Sub- Regulation (1) deals with the power of competent authority on  completion of the departmental enquiry. All other cases,  except those covered by Sub-Regulation (1), the competent  authority has to direct as regards the proportion of pay and  allowances to be granted.

9.      Clause 22 of the Manual deals with two situations. One  is full exoneration in the departmental proceedings and other  is acquittal by the court of law of the charges levelled. Clause  22(8) specifically deals with acquittal by criminal court. It does  not exclude acquittal where accused has been given benefit of  doubt. A close reading of Sub-Regulation (1) of Regulation 15  would show that the same is relatable to departmental  proceedings. While other cases, meaning, cases not covered by  departmental proceedings, which obviously would include the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

criminal trial are covered by sub-regulation (2).

10.     At this juncture, it would also be relevant to take note of  Clause 21(9) of the Regulation. It deals with entitlements for  benefits after acquittal by a criminal court.

11.     The same reads as follows:

"Where a suspended employee has been  fully exonerated in the departmental enquiry  or honourably acquitted by the courts of law of  the charges levelled against him, he would be  entitled to all benefits to which he would have  been normally entitled, had he been on duty.  However, the employee in such a case would  not be entitled to all benefits to which he  would have been normally entitled, had he  been on duty. However, the employee in such a  case would not be entitled to accumulate leave  beyond the permissible limit. However, if the  employee is acquitted by being given the  benefit of doubt he may be paid such portion  of pay and allowances as the management may  deem proper and the period of his suspension  shall not be treated as period spent on duty  unless the management so direct."

12.     It is to be noted that Regulation 21(9) does not relate to  officers and the respondent herein was an officer and,  therefore, Regulation 21 has no relevance as it covers only the  award staff.  13.     Clause 22(8) obviously is relatable to Clause 15(2),  meaning that it provides guidelines for operating sub- Regulation (2) of Regulation 15. The High Court was, therefore,  justified in holding that because of Clause 22(8), the  respondent was entitled to all benefits to which he would have  been normally entitled, had he been on duty.  Therefore, no  interference is called for. 14.     The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no  order as to costs.