Case Note & Summary
The appellant, a former employee of Indian Bank, filed a writ appeal challenging the order of the Single Judge dated 13.06.2025 in W.P.No.8809 of 2024, which dismissed his writ petition seeking full salary and allowances for the period of suspension from 01.07.2006 to 30.04.2012. A criminal case was registered against the appellant, which ended in an order of acquittal on benefit of doubt. The appellant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and claimed settlement of full salary and allowances for the suspension period. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that as per the Memorandum of Settlement and the Vigilance Manual, which are binding on employees of Indian Bank, the period of suspension cannot be treated as duty with full wages. The appellant contended that though the acquittal was on benefit of doubt, the evidence on record indicated merits in his favour, and relied on Supreme Court decisions in Mohan Lal, Constable, Delhi Police, Delhi Vs. Union of India and Others and Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another Vs. Mehar Singh. The respondent argued that Indian Bank employees are governed by the Memorandum of Settlement and Vigilance Manual, specifically Clause 24.3 of the Vigilance Manual and Clause 3(c) of the Memorandum of Settlement, which provide that when an employee is acquitted on benefit of doubt, the suspension period shall not be treated as duty and no pay and allowances are payable. The Division Bench found that the judgments cited by the appellant were of no avail because the Indian Bank's specific provisions regulate the suspension period in cases of acquittal on benefit of doubt. The court held that the Single Judge rightly relied on the applicable provisions and dismissed the writ petition. Consequently, the writ appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Suspension Period Regularization - Full Wages after Acquittal on Benefit of Doubt - Indian Bank Vigilance Manual Clause 24.3 and Memorandum of Settlement Clause 3(c) - The appellant, an employee of Indian Bank, was suspended from 01.07.2006 to 30.04.2012 and later acquitted in a criminal case on benefit of doubt. After retirement, he sought full salary for the suspension period. The High Court held that as per binding provisions, the suspension period cannot be treated as duty with full wages; appeal dismissed (Paras 2-6). B) Service Law - Precedent - Distinguishing Supreme Court Decisions - Indian Bank Vigilance Manual Clause 24.3 and Memorandum of Settlement Clause 3(c) - The appellant relied on Mohan Lal and Mehar Singh, but the court held those decisions were not applicable because Indian Bank had specific rules regulating suspension period when acquittal is on benefit of doubt; no infirmity in Single Judge order (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an employee of Indian Bank, who was acquitted in a criminal case on benefit of doubt, is entitled to full salary and allowances for the period of suspension, treating suspension period as duty.
Final Decision
Writ appeal dismissed; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
Law Points
- Employees of Indian Bank are governed by Memorandum of Settlement and Vigilance Manual
- period of suspension cannot be treated as duty with full wages if acquittal on benefit of doubt
- Clause 24.3 Vigilance Manual
- Clause 3(c) Memorandum of Settlement
- acquittal on benefit of doubt does not entitle employee to full salary for suspension period.
