CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J. - (1.) The instant appeal has been filed for correctness of order judgment and order dated 06.12.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2844 (SS) of 2004 (S.B. Singh vs. State Bank of India and Ors.).
(2.) Brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) Show-cause notice dated 22.05.2001 was issued by the appellant/Bank to the respondent/writ petitioner seeking explanation of fraudulent withdrawal aggregated of Rs.54,100/- on various dates from the saving bank accounts of Shri V.K. Jaiswal and Shri Udham Singh during his posting as Passing Officer at Phulpur, Azamgarh Branch of the Bank from 22.08.1996 to 15.06.2000. The respondent/writ petitioner submitted his reply on 22.05.2001. (ii) The Bank initiated departmental proceedings by issuing charge-sheet to the respondent/writ petitioner by charging him for making fraudulent withdrawal amounting to Rs.54,100/- from saving bank accounts of Shri V.K. Jaiswal and Shri Udham Singh thereby exposing the Bank to substantial loss. The respondent/writ petitioner did not submit any written statement in defence. Shri R.K. Srivastava was appointed as enquiry officer by the appointing authority to inquire the charges levelled against the respondent/writ petitioner. The Bank also lodged an FIR against the respondent/writ petitioner bearing Crime No.23 of 2002 for committing offence under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 IPC on 22.02.2002 at P.S. Phulpur, District Azamgarh. (iii) On 23.04.2003 the enquiry officer submitted his report holding the allegation no.1 partly proved. However, Deputy General Manager (Disciplinary Authority) disagreed and tentatively found the charge to be fully proved. The disciplinary authority sought representation of the respondent/writ petitioner on findings of the enquiry officer. On 06.06.2003, the respondent/writ petitioner submitted a representation. The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on 17.11.2003. Against punishment order dated 17.11.2003, the respondent/writ petitioner submitted departmental appeal to the Chief General Manager (Appellate Authority) on 06.01.2004. Vide order dated 05.04.2004, the appellate authority dismissed the departmental appeal and found the penalty commensurate with the lapses held proved against the respondent/writ petitioner. The respondent/writ petitioner preferred a petition bearing Writ Petition No.2844 (SS) of 2004, impugning the order of punishment dated 17.11.2003 and order of dismissal of departmental appeal dated 05.04.2004. (iv) Vide order dated 07.06.2008, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh convicted the respondent/writ petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 IPC in Criminal Case No.3995 of 2006 (State of U.P. vs. S.B. Singh). Against the said order, the respondent/writ petitioner preferred a criminal appeal bearing No.27 of 2008 before Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh. The said criminal appeal was allowed by the appellate Court vide order dated 24.05.2010 and the respondent/writ petitioner was acquitted by granting benefit of doubt. (v) After the order of the criminal appeal, the respondent/writ petitioner amended Writ Petition No.2844 (SS) of 2004 by bringing subsequent development on record. Vide impugned order dated 06.12.2018, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed order of punishment dated 17.11.2003 and order of appellate authority dated 05.04.2004 with direction to the appellant/Bank to treat the respondent/writ petitioner in service w.e.f the date of dismissal order dated 17.11.2003 till the date of his superannuation i.e. 31.07.2016 and to provide him all consequential service benefits and the post retiral benefits.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that judgment and order dated 06.12.2018 (supra) passed by learned Single Judge is erroneous in law as well as on facts. The learned Single Judge erroneously presumed and proceeded in the entire judgment on the premise that the respondent/writ petitioner was ''honourably' acquitted in the criminal proceedings, although he was acquitted on benefit of doubt.;