Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In a case that clarifies the legal consequences of criminal conviction on employment in public sector banks, the Patna High Court has held that an employee who was dismissed following conviction in a criminal case cannot claim salary benefits for the period after release on bail but before acquittal. The Court emphasized that disqualification from service arises the moment an employee is convicted, and the benefit of salary resumes only after acquittal.

The petitioner in this case was employed as a Peon (Office Assistant) in Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank. An FIR was lodged against him and his family under Sections 304B and 34 of the IPC (dowry death and common intention) in 2006. Eventually, he was convicted by the Sessions Court on 10.06.2015. He was granted bail and released from custody on 08.09.2015, following which he reported to the bank for joining on 09.09.2015.

However, the bank did not accept his joining and instead initiated proceedings under its service rules, specifically Regulations 39 and 40, which allowed for dismissal on the ground of conviction. The petitioner was formally dismissed from service on 27.11.2015.

Subsequently, the petitioner’s criminal appeal succeeded. On 02.01.2019, the High Court acquitted him of all charges. By then, however, he had already crossed the age of superannuation. Through this writ petition and an interlocutory application, he sought:

• Quashing of his dismissal order dated 27.11.2015, and
• Payment of salary from 09.09.2015 (the date he reported to duty post-bail).

The petitioner relied on Supreme Court judgments (Raj Narayan vs Union of India, 2019; Ranchhorji Chaturji Thakore vs Superintending Engineer, 1996) to argue that he was entitled to salary from the date of reporting back, as he had offered to rejoin and was prevented by the bank’s refusal.

However, the Court rejected this argument. It clarified that under the bank’s service regulations, the mere fact of conviction is a disqualification from continued service. The bank was entitled to dismiss him without a full disciplinary hearing once the conviction order was passed.

The Court held that only after acquittal is the disqualification removed. Therefore, any offer to rejoin before acquittal cannot create a right to claim salary. The petitioner’s joining on 09.09.2015, while he was still a convict, did not entitle him to wages for the period thereafter.

That said, the Court clarified that now, since the petitioner stands acquitted and there is no disqualification remaining, he is eligible for post-retirement benefits under the applicable service rules. It directed the petitioner to submit his claim within four weeks, and the bank to process and disburse admissible dues within three months thereafter.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This decision is significant for public sector employees, especially in the banking sector, as it confirms:

• Conviction in a criminal case—regardless of whether an appeal is pending—creates an immediate disqualification from service under service rules.
• Salary benefits are not payable for the period when the employee is under conviction, even if acquitted later.
• Reinstatement or salary rights arise only after the disqualification (i.e., conviction) is legally removed.

For banks and public institutions, the judgment affirms the validity of service rules that permit dismissal upon conviction without separate departmental proceedings. It also provides a clear timeline for when benefits and service rights can resume in cases of acquittal.

For employees, the ruling underscores the importance of seeking legal remedies promptly and the limitations of claiming retrospective salary benefits during periods of conviction.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with Reasoning

• Can a bank employee claim salary from the date of release on bail if he is later acquitted?
  • Decision: No
  • Reasoning: Conviction itself is a disqualification under the bank’s regulations. Salary can be claimed only after acquittal removes that disqualification.
• Was the bank justified in dismissing the employee upon conviction?
  • Decision: Yes
  • Reasoning: As per Regulations 39 and 40 of the service rules, conviction authorizes dismissal without requirement of natural justice principles.
• Is the employee now entitled to post-retirement benefits after acquittal?
  • Decision: Yes
  • Reasoning: With no disqualification remaining, post-retiral dues under service rules must be granted if claimed.

Judgments Referred by Parties

• Raj Narayan vs Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 3339 of 2019
• Ranchhorji Chaturji Thakore vs Superintending Engineer, (1996) 11 SCC 603

Case Title
Tarkeshwa Pandey vs Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank & Others

Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17545 of 2015

Citation(s)
2020 (1) PLJR 214

Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad

Names of Advocates and Who They Appeared For
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar Manglam
For the Respondents: Mr. Prabhakar Jha, Mr. Mukund Mohan Jha

Link to Judgment
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTc1NDUjMjAxNSMxI04=-LJW–am1–mSpGyc4=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.