IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.54014 OF 2016 (S-PRO) BETWEEN:
S. LAKSHMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.68, 10TH CROSS R.B.I. LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR 7TH PHASE BENGALURU – 560 078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.R.GANESH RAO, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY AND GENERAL MANAGER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK NO.7, BHIKHAIJI CAMA PLACE HEAD OFFICE NEW DELHI – 110 607.
2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK NO.7, BHIKHAIJI CAMA PLACE HEAD OFFICE NEW DELHI – 110 607.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK NO.7, BHIKHAIJI CAMA PLACE HEAD OFFICE NEW DELHI – 110 607. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P. UDAYSHANKAR RAI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT BANK STATING THAT DATED 29.01.2015 OF ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DIVISION H.O.NEW DELHI PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECEIVE ANY ARREARS VIDE EMAIL DTD: 30.10.2015 OF CONSUMER CARE EXECUTIVE MD AND CEO SECRETARIATE AS PER ANNEXURE-‘O’ AND ‘R’ ANNEXED TO THIS WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R In the instant petition, the petitioner has sough for the following reliefs:
“a) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the Order of the Respondent Bank stating that the petitioner is not entitled to receive any arrears vide Ref:HRD:SMR:26626:1969 dated 29.01.2015 of Asst. General Manager, Punjab National Bank, Human Resources Development Division, HO, New Delhi as per Annexure-O and R vide Email dated 30.10.2015 of Customer Care Executive MD & CEO Secretariat annexed to this Writ Petition.
b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the Order of the Respondent Bank stating that the petitioner’s promotion was under sealed cover and he will not be entitled to receive any arrears from 01.10.2011 to 28.01.2015 on account of his notional promotion vide HRDD:SMR:26626 dated 11.01.2016 of Asst.
General Manager, Human Resource Development Division, HO, New Delhi as per Annexure-U annexed to this Writ Petition.
c) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order directing the Respondents to promote the petitioner from his due date of promotion i.e. from 01.10.2011 and direct the respondent bank to accord arrears of pay and allowance from 01.11.2011 and also accord superannuation and other consequential benefits on account of promotion from 01.10.2011, on superannuation from the service of the respondent bank as per letters dated 16.03.2015, 15.10.2015, 18.11.2015 and 29.07.2016 as per the Annexure-P, Q, S and W annexed to this Writ Petition.
d) Award exemplary cost of this writ petition.
e) To pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and expedient in the facts and circumstances of case, in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Undisputed facts are that, the petitioner was facing certain disciplinary proceedings, he has been exonerated. Due to which the petitioner’s name has been kept in sealed cover for the post of Deputy General Manager as on 01.10.2011. Consequently, the official respondents have open sealed cover and given effect by promoting the petitioner to the post of Deputy General Manager on 28.01.2015 with effect from 01.10.2011. In this background, the petitioner has not been extended the monetary benefits during the intervening period from 01.10.2011 to 28.01.2015. Hence, petitioner is before this Court.
3. Having regard to the dates and events for no fault of the petitioner, he has been denied monetary benefits. Procedure adopted by the respondents in keeping the petitioner’s name for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager under sealed cover and if once he has been exonerated then he is entitled for monetary benefits from retrospective date.
4. In an identical circumstances, paragraph Nos.26 & 27 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. K.V.JANKIRAMAN AND OTHERS reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 held as under:
“26. We are, therefore, broadly in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal that when an employee is completely exonerated meaning thereby that he is not found blameworthy in the least and is not visited with the penalty even of censure, he has to be given the benefit of the salary of the higher post along with the other benefits from the date on which he would have normally been promoted but for the disciplinary/ criminal proceedings. However, there may be cases where the proceedings, whether disciplinary or criminal, are, for example, delayed at the instance of the employee or the clearance in the disciplinary proceedings or acquittal in the criminal proceedings is with benefit of doubt or on account of non-availability of evidence due to the acts attributable to the employee etc. In such circumstances, the concerned authorities must be vested with the power to decide whether the employee at all deserves any salary for the intervening period and if he does, the extent to which he deserves it. Life being complex, it is not possible to anticipate and enumerate exhaustively all the circumstances under which such consideration may become necessary. To ignore, however, such circumstances when they exist and lay down an inflexible rule that in every case when an employee is exonerated in disciplinary/ criminal proceedings he should be entitled to all salary for the intervening period is to undermine discipline in the administration and jeopardise public interests. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the Tribunal that to deny the salary to an employee would in all circumstances be illegal. While, therefore, we do not approve of the said last sentence in the first sub-paragraph after clause (iii) of paragraph 3 of the said Memorandum, viz., "but no arrears of pay shall be payable to him for the period of notional promotion preceding the date of actual promotion", we direct that in place of the said sentence the following sentence be read in the Memorandum:
"However, whether the officer concerned will be entitled to any arrears of pay for the period of notional promotion preceding the date of actual promotion, and if so to what extent, will be decided by the concerned authority by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the disciplinary proceeding/criminal prosecution. Where the authority denies arrears of salary or part of it, it will record its reasons for doing so."
27. To this extent we set aside the conclusion of the Tribunal on the said point.”
5. The petitioner is entitled to difference of salary in the post of Deputy General Manager during the intervening period from 01.10.2011 to 28.01.2015, the same shall be calculated and disburse to the petitioner within a period the three months along with interest @ 6% per annum.
6. With the above observation, petition stands disposed of. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during intervening period from 01.10.2011 to 28.01.2015, he is also entitled for next promotional post in the event of any junior to the petitioner, was promoted for such next higher post.
7. The concerned respondent is hereby directed to examine the petitioner’s case at par with junior and consider the promotion of the petitioner, if he is otherwise eligible and extend consequential benefits including seniority and monetary benefits at par as of the junior who has been promoted.
In this regard, the concerned respondent is hereby directed to pass speaking order and communicate to the petitioner.
Sd/- JUDGE HA/-