- (1.) Heard Sri M. Ali-1, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Gopal Kumar Srivastava for the opposite parties.
(2.) Petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 6.2.2009 on the ground that he was arrested on criminal charges by the C.B.I. The Manager of the Bank was also arrested in the same connection. Exactly after a month, the Petitioner was granted bail by the High Court on the ground that the Manager was directly responsible for the crime and the Petitioner did not have any role. Petitioner was suspended on 6.2.2009 and the bail was granted to him on 6.3.2009. After grant of bail the Petitioner submitted his representation on 18.3.2009 to the Assistant General Manager Zonal Office, Allahabad Bank, Lakhimpur Kheri requesting that he may be reinstated in service as he has been granted bail. More than a year has passed. When no order was passed on his representation the Petitioner submitted his appeal to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Allahabad Bank, Kolkata on 16.6.2010 through proper channel which has been received on 11.6.2010 at Kherwahiya Branch of the Allahabad Bank in District Lakhimpur Kheri. Petitioner further says that identically situated persons like Mahendra Singh, S.K. Agarwal, C.P. Singh and Chaitanya Kumar involved in criminal cases by the C.B.I. are facing trial before the Anti-Corruption Judge at Lucknow but they have been reinstated in service while the Petitioner's case is pending since 18.3.2009.
(3.) The main argument of the Petitioner is that the opposite parties have not applied their mind on the representation filed by him on 18.3.2009. He simply argues that the representation filed by him has neither been rejected nor allowed. The case of the Petitioner is that indifferent attitude and non-application of mind are there in the case of the Petitioner. He further argues that his continued suspension is without any basis inasmuch as no conscious decision has been taken by the opposite parties in this case. Opposite parties would have been well within their rights if they had considered the case of the Petitioner and come to a definite conclusion that he should remain under suspension in the interest of Bank. In that situation, the Petitioner would not have any case. The Petitioner would have no case also if the Bank authorities were to decide that his continuance on the post of Cashier will lower down the prestige of the Bank in the eyes of common public. But simply keeping the representation pending without taking any decision on it either way cannot be justified and inaction of the opposite parties will fall in the category of arbitrariness and whimsical action. Sri Gopal Kumar Srivastava has drawn the attention of this Court towards the First Bipartite Settlement. Clause 19.3 (a) of this settlement is quoted below: 19.3 (a) When in the opinion of the management an employee has committed an offence, unless he be otherwise prosecuted, the Bank may take steps to prosecute him or get him prosecuted, and in such a case he may also be suspended.;