R.K. Solanki vs Central Bank of India and Others

R.S. Jha, J.—The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the default pointed out by the office has been removed on 5.8.2013. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the respondent authorities by communication dated 6.5.2013 are treating the petitioner to be an employee under suspension and are proceedings with the Department enquiry against him in respect of the same and identical charges for which the petitioner has been acquitted by the competent criminal court by judgment dated 23.1.2013 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Appeal No. 167/2012.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another, , submits that once the petitioner has been acquitted for the similar and identical charges, he cannot be further prosecuted by the department for the same and identical charges and, therefore, the respondent authorities be directed to reinstate the petitioner with all benefits as has been held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that the petitioner was removed from service while under suspension and during the progress of the departmental enquiry on account of his conviction by the competent criminal court but thereafter he has been acquitted by the appellate court and in such circumstances the respondent authorities, by the impugned communication, have informed the petitioner that his services stand revived but he will continue to remain under suspension and the departmental enquiry will progress further.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, whether the respondent authorities can do so or not or whether the petitioner is required to be reinstated after his acquittal by the competent criminal court in similar and identical charges in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) has to be examined by the authority concerned and, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner approaches the respondent authorities alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition within fifteen days from the date of obtaining the certified copy of the same, the concerned authority shall examine the case of the petitioner and thereafter take a decision thereon regarding dropping of the departmental enquiry and reinstatement of the petitioner, expeditiously in accordance with law preferably within a period of two months thereafter.

With the aforesaid direction, the petition, filed by the petitioner, stands disposed of. C.C. as per rules.