High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Brahma Nand Agrawal v. Central Bank Of India & Others - WRIT - A No. 20326 of 1998  RD-AH 8367 (4 May 2007)
Court No. 26
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20326 of 1998
Brahma Nand Agrawal
Central Bank of India & Others
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed as Clerk on 14.8.1962 and was promoted to the post of Sub-Accountant in Central Bank of India, Bara Bazar, Jhansi on 13.3.1978. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 16.6.1984 by the Chief Manager, Central Bank of India, Divisional Office, Kanpur on the ground that he had indulged in actions prejudicial to the interest of the Bank which were likely to cause financial loss to the Bank.
It appears that a settlement had been reached between the General Manager of the Bank at Zonal Office, Lucknow and the petitioner on 29.6.1984 in regard to which a letter dated 2.7.1984 was also sent to the petitioner by the Manager of the Bank at Bara Bazar, Jhansi. In pursuance of the aforesaid settlement the petitioner deposited Rs. 97,000/- and Rs. 29,000/-, Total Rs. 1,26,000/- on 2.7.1984 in the Bank at Bara Bazar, Jhansi.
It is alleged that on 5.7.1984 as per letter dated 5.7.1984 issued by the Manager, Central Bank of India, Bara Bazar, Jhansi the petitioner further deposited the remaining balance of Rs. 4000/- in Central Bank of India, Bara Bazar, Jhansi. As per terms of settlement dated 29.6.1984 between the General Manager, Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Lucknow and though the petitioner deposited all the due amount but instead of reinstating the petitioner in service in terms of settlement as many as four First Information Reports were lodged against the same very incident on 26.9.1984, 19.10.1984, 20.10.1984 and 30.10.1984 by different Branch Managers of Central Bank of India.
It appears that after holding domestic enquiry the petitioner was dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority/Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Civil Lines, Jhansi vide order dated 16.7.1987. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, i.e., the Divisional Manager, Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Lucknow against the order of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority vide its order 21.9.1987 confirmed the punishment of dismissal from service of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Suit No. 39 of 1988 for declaration to the effect that the order dated 21.9.1987 passed by the appellate authority and the order dated 16.7.1987 passed by the disciplinary authority were illegal and ineffective. The suit was decreed by the Munsif, Jhansi vide judgment and decree dated 23.8.1994.
The respondents filed Civil Appeal No. 106 of 1994 before the District Judge, Jhansi against the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif, Jhansi which was allowed by the District Judge, Jhansi and the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif, Jhansi was set aside.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Second Appeal No. 780 of 1995 against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge before this Court which was dismissed the second appeal vide judgment and order dated 22.1.1996.
It appears from the record that in the criminal cases initiated in pursuance of F.I.Rs. dated 27.10.1984 and 30.10.1984 the petitioner was acquitted and in respect of Criminal Case No. 532 of 1991, State Vs Brahma Nand Agrawal the petitioner filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 5783 of 1992 before the High Court in which this Court vide its judgment and order dated 29.1.1997 quashed the proceedings of aforesaid case. In pursuance whereof the Munsif Magistrate, Jhansi vide his order dated 3.5.1997 quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 532 of 1991.
Similarly in respect of another Criminal Case No. 1635 of 1990, State Vs Brahma Nand Agrawal, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi the petitioner filed another Criminal Misc. Application No. 12942 of 1992 before this Court and this Court vide its judgment and order dated 29.1.1997 quashed the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case also and in pursuance of the judgment and order of this Court dated 29.1.1997 the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist, Jhansi vide his order dated 18.8.1997 quashed the criminal case against the petitioner.
It appears that after acquittal of the petitioner in all criminal cases he sent representations dated 6.9.1997 and 3.10.1997 to the Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Jhansi for his reinstatement in service but the same are lying unactioned with the Regional Manager.
The only prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage is that this petition may be disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the aforesaid representations of the petitioner and decide the question of payment of his salary.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly urged that the matter has been decided in the earlier writ petition, hence he is making it clear that he has not challenged the order of termination but has only prayed for payment of his salary as that would amount to re-opening of the case which has already attained finality vide judgment in the earlier proceedings culminating in judgment in Second Appeal. Even if the petitioner is acquitted in the criminal case, in view of settled law that will not be in his favour, as his services had been terminated after departmental enquiry which attained finality vide judgment in the earlier writ petition.
Per contra, if the payment of salary of the petitioner is made it will open a Pandora box which has already attained finality in the earlier proceedings. If the petitioner was aggrieved he could have prayed the court for payment of his salary which he did not do so and as such it will be deemed that all the questions raised in this writ petition had already been raised and decided in the earlier writ petition.
For the reasons stated above, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy within two months from today. The petitioner may, if so advised, raise an industrial dispute before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. Since the petitioner is alleging that he has been made payment of the amount under the settlement entered into between the petitioner and the Bank, the same can be settled in the industrial dispute where the parties can lead oral and documentary evidence in support of their case. Suffice it to say that even any pecuniary loss has been caused and the petitioner has deposited the money the Labour Court can still come to a conclusion that the petitioner has committed misconduct or not.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.