M.P. Jindal vs State Bank of Patiala and Others

Rajesh Bindal, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the order dated 5.7.2011 (Annexure P-5), whereby he has been denied salary for the period of suspension and dismissal before his reinstatement in service. Briefly, the pleaded facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the respondent-bank on 20.10.1983. On the basis of a complaint made to the police by one Palu Ram against Mehar Chand Chhabra, Manager of the bank for seeking illegal gratification for release of loan, FIR was registered on 21.8.1998. The accused were arrested. After investigation, challan was presented. The petitioner as well as the other accused were convicted by the trial court on 6.3.2002. The petitioner was initially placed under suspension on 14.9.1998, however, later on, reinstated in service on 23.6.2001 during the pendency of the trial. He was dismissed from service on 11.3.2002 after his conviction by the trial court on 6.3.2002.

As the reason for suspension and dismissal of the petitioner was merely for his involvement in the case and conviction by the court, immediately after acceptance of his appeal by this Court, resulting in setting aside of his conviction, the petitioner filed application before the authorities seeking his reinstatement in service. The same was accepted and the petitioner was reinstated back in service vide order dated 22.4.2011. As a consequence therefore, the petitioner joined back service on 24.4.2001. He requested for release of his salary for the period of suspension and dismissal on the ground that he was not at fault, which was declined by the bank vide communication dated 5.7.2011 (Annexure P-5), which is impugned in the present petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order vide which the petitioner has been denied benefit of wages for the period he remained under suspension and dismissed on account of a criminal case could not be passed by the bank for the reason that ultimately the petitioner was acquitted of the charges framed against him. He was not at fault. He never refused to work. The principle of ''no work no pay'' could not be applied in his case. No departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The only reason for his suspension and conviction was the criminal case. The criminal case was registered against the Manager of the bank for demanding illegal gratification for release of the loan amount. The petitioner was falsely implicated in the case.

In Criminal Appeal No. 420-SB of 2002 -M. P. Jindal v. State of Haryana, filed by the petitioner against his conviction, he was acquitted of the charges vide judgment dated 24.9.2010. However, the conviction of the Manager in Criminal Appeal No. 416-SB of 2002-Mehar Chand Chhabra v. State of Haryana has been upheld by this Court vide judgment dated 24.9.2010. Considering the aforesaid facts, the impugned communication of the bank dated 5.7.2001 (Annexure P-5) denying the petitioner wages for the period in question, deserves to be set aside. In support of his contention, reliance was placed upon judgments of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman, etc. etc., and Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and others v. Nathu Ram, 20120(1) RSJ 3279 and judgments of this Court in Shashi Kumar v. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and another, 2005(1) RSJ 718, Bhag Singh v. Punjab & Sind Bank, 2006(1) RSJ 485, Chander Singh Dalal v. Haryana Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Limited, Chandigarh through its Managing Director and others, 2008(3) RSJ 268 and Mathura Dass Gupta v. Superintending Engineer, Circle Office, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others, 2008(3) RSJ 251.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the present case the petitioner was not involved in the case on account of something done by him in his personal capacity. It was in the course of employment. The petitioner was merely discharging his duty as Cashier. He was merely handed over some money for depositing in the account of the Manager of the bank on his direction. It is the case of complainant-Palu Ram that the petitioner never demanded any money. The petitioner has unblemised record of service.

On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the respondent-bank submitted that initiation of proceedings in the present case against the petitioner was not on the complaint by the bank, rather it was a private party. It is not that the case set up by the bank had finally failed on account of which the petitioner was not permitted to work. As the petitioner was involved in a case of corruption on a complaint made by a private person, he had to be placed under suspension immediately after his arrest. He was dismissed from service after his conviction. After his conviction was set aside by this Court, the petitioner had already been taken back in service, however, as the bank cannot be held to be at fault for this entire episode, he cannot be paid wages for the intervening period. He further submitted that in the letter dated 22.4.2011, vide which the petitioner was reinstated back in service, it was specifically stated that no salary and other benefits arising thereupon shall be paid for the period the petitioner remained dismissed from service on the principle of ''no work no pay''. The petitioner having accepted the terms and conditions had joined the duty on 24.4.2011. Now nothing lies in his mouth to state that he should be paid wages for the period in question. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed upon judgments of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. The Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, 1997(1) SCT 824, Union of India and others v. Jaipal Singh, 2004(1) SCT 108 and Baldev Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others,

Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

As has been noticed above, it is a case where complaint was made only against the Manager of the bank, namely, Mehar Chand Chhabra. The petitioner was working as Cashier in the bank. The complaint made by one Palu Ram was that the Manager of the bank had demanded illegal gratification from him for release of loan. The petitioner was also involved considering the fact that he was working as Cashier in the Branch and the amount was recovered from him. It was lying in the cash box of the bank. His case was that on a direction of the Manager, the amount was to be deposited in his account and he in discharge of his duties had received the same and kept in cash box in his cabin. The aforesaid stand is even corroborated by the statement of the complainant, who never had a grouse against the petitioner. Though initially the petitioner was convicted by the trial court, however, he was acquitted in appeal by this Court and conviction of Mehar Chand Chhabra-Manager, was upheld. Relevant paragraphs from the judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 420-SB of 2002 filed by the petitioner are extracted below:

The present case was set in motion on a complaint made by PW-1 Palu Ram. PW-1 Palu Ram has deposed that loan of Rs. 20,000/- each was sanctioned in favour of his wife and brother. The wife and brother of the witness had been interviewed by the bank officials. The manager of the bank demanded Rs. 4,000/- from him for release of the first instalment. Ultimately the matter was settled at Rs. 3,000/-. He had paid Rs. 1,000/- to the manager for release of the first instalment and two drafts of Rs. 8,000/- and Rs. 12,000/- were handed over to him. When he approached the manager for release of the second instalment the manager raised a demand of Rs. 2,000/- from him. The other accused had not made any demand from him in this regard. He moved a complaint in this regard to the office of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI for short). Thereafter, he gave 20 currency notes of Rs. 100/- each and the same were returned back to him after application of phenolphthalein powder (P-Powder for short). The witness was also shown the demonstration qua working of the P-Powder. Thereafter the complainant went to the bank along with his wife, brother and Ram Bilas Gulia. The manager asked him if he had brought the amount and on his affirmation, the manager asked the witness to hand over the money to Mr. Jindal, Cashier, to be deposited in the account of the manager. He gave Rs. 2,000/- to Mr. Jindal. Mr. Jindal enquired from the manager as to what was to be done with Rs. 2,000/- and the manager told Mr. Jindal to deposit the same in his account (Manager account). Thereafter the manager completed the formalities for handing over the drafts. After payment Mr. Gulia shadow witness, went outside the bank and gave signal to the raiding party. Thereafter the officials of CBI entered the bank and hands of Mr. Jindal were washed in a solution and the colour of the solution turned pink. The currency notes were recovered by the CBI officials from the cash box. The numbers of the currency notes were tallied by the officials.

Xx xx xx

First of all, let us take the case of appellant M. P. Jindal. So far as the said appellant is concerned, it is a case of no evidence against him. PW-1 Palu Ram has categorically deposed that no demand of bribe money was made from him by cashier M. P. Jindal. So far as the shadow witness Ram Bilas Gulia, Sujata Devi and Mukesh Kumar are concerned, they have not supported the prosecution case. Although the hand wash solution qua appellant M. P. Jindal turned pink but PW-1 has explained in his cross-examination that the tainted currency notes were handed over to the cashier at the instance of Manager M. C. Chhabra. This witness has further explained that Manager M. C. Chhabra had directed the cashier M. P. Jindal to deposit the amount in his account. The money in question was also recovered from the cash box in which cash was kept by the cashier. From this, it is evident that the cashier had neither demanded money nor had accepted the same on his own behalf. Although recovery of the cash of the tainted money was made from the cash box of appellant M. P. Jindal but from the testimony of PW-1, it is evident that the same had been kept in the cash box on behalf of appellant M. C. Chhabra. In these circumstances the conviction and sentence qua appellant M. P. Jindal is liable to be set aside.

No departmental proceedings were held against the petitioner. The petitioner though was initially suspended, however, during trial, he was reinstated but was again dismissed when he was convicted by the trial court. After his acquittal by this Court, the petitioner represented for his reinstatement back in service. The same having been allowed, the petitioner was taken back in service. It is thereafter that the petitioner claimed that wages for the period he remained under suspension and/or dismissal be paid to him as he was not at fault. He was always ready and willing to work. The principle of ''no work no pay'' will not be applicable in the case in hand as it could be applied in a case where though work is offered but the employee did not perform the same. It cannot be said that the case in which the petitioner was involved had no relation with his employment. It was not for something done by him in his personal life. It was only because he was working in the bank as Cashier that he was involved in the case merely because in discharge of his duty, he had received certain cash from a person on instructions from the Manager for deposit in his account. The amount was not recovered from his pocket, rather, it was in the cash box of the bank. The petitioner herein is the sufferer of the circumstances in the course of his employment. He cannot be said to be at fault.

In LPA No. 1580 of 2011-General Manager Operation Circle, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Narnaul and others v. Mathura Dass Gupta, decided on 10.2.2012, a Division Bench of this Court upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge granting consequential benefits to an employee who was reinstated back in service after acquittal in a criminal case on the plea that principle of ''no work no pay'' would not be applicable therein and further that normal rule of ''no work no pay'' is not applicable where the employee although he is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. The case may be different where an employee is convicted for an offence not connected with his office and got himself involved in something with which the department had no concern or responsibility. The case in hand is also similar. As has already been noticed above, involvement of the petitioner in criminal case was only during the course of his employment though ultimately he was acquitted by this Court.

For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order dated 5.7.2011 passed by the bank declining pay and allowances to the petitioner for the period he remained under suspension and also out of service, is set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to the same. The writ petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above.