Holding

Clause 22(8) of the Manual, read with Regulation 15(2), entitles an employee acquitted (or given benefit of doubt) in a criminal trial to full salary and allowances for the period of suspension, and the High Court’s order is affirmed.

Summary

M. Venurangnanath, a branch manager of UCO Bank, was charged with offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act and was acquitted with benefit of doubt. He had been suspended from service during the criminal proceedings and, after reinstatement, faced departmental enquiry which found him guilty, resulting in denial of salary, allowances and increment for the suspension period. He filed a writ petition seeking payment of those benefits; the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the petition on the basis of Clause 22(8) of the Bank’s Manual on Disciplinary Action. The bank appealed, contending that the Manual was merely a guideline and that Regulation 15(2) of the United Commercial Bank (Conduct and Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 should govern the entitlement. The Supreme Court examined Regulation 12 (suspension) and Regulation 15 (pay and allowances), held that the suspension fell under Regulation 12(i)(b) and that Clause 22(8) provides the rule for applying Regulation 15(2), thereby entitling the employee to full salary and allowances for the suspension period. The Court affirmed the High Court’s order and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether Clause 22(8) of the Manual on Disciplinary Action and Related Matters of UCO Bank overrides Regulation 15(2) of the United Commercial Bank (Conduct and Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 in granting salary and allowances to an employee acquitted in a criminal trial.
Whether an employee suspended pending a criminal case is entitled to full pay and allowances for the period of suspension after being acquitted or given benefit of doubt.
Whether departmental proceedings can deprive an employee of pay and allowances despite acquittal in the criminal court.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120-B, s. 471, s. 477
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947s. 5(2) read with 5(1)(d)

Subjects

disciplinary proceedingssuspensionsalary benefitsacquittalbenefit of doubtbank employeeRegulation 12Regulation 15Clause 22(8)departmental enquiry

Judgment

·• 1 GENERAL MANAGER, UCO BANK & ANR. A
.:4 v.
M. VENURANGANATH
,. DECEMBER 12, 2007
B
[DR.ARIJITPASAYAT ANDAFTABALAM,JJ.]

Service Law:
Bank-Disciplinary proceedings-Respondent, Branch Manager c
in appellant No.1-Bank, tried for offences under !PC and Prevention
of Corruption Act-But given benefit of doubt by Court and
acquitted-Subsequently, Respondent, who meanwhile had been under
suspension, was reinstated-After reinstatement, departmental
proceedings initiated in which Respondent found guilty-He was held D
not entitled to salary and allowances and other attendant benefits
including incrementfor period under suspension-Respondentfiled writ
petition claiming pay and allowances for period ofsuspension-Claim
allowed by High Court--Held: Clause 22(8) ofthe Disciplinary Manual
governed the case ofRespondent-High Court justified in holding that E·
because of Clause 22(8), Respondent was entitled to all benefits to
which he would have been normally entitled, had he been on duty-
Manual on Disciplinary Action and Related Matters of UCO Bank-
Clause 22(8)-United Commercial Bank (Conduct, Discipline and
~-- i
Appeal) Regulation, 1976-Regulations 12 & 15. F

Respondent, Branch Manager in Appellant No.1-bank, was tried
for offences under ss.120-B, 471 and 477 of the IPC ands. 5(2) r/w s.5(1)
(d) ofthe Prevention ofCorruption Act, 1947, but given benefit ofdoubt
by the Court and acquitted. Subsequently, Respondent, who meanwhile
G
had been under suspension, was reinstated. After re-instatement,
~t
departmental proceedings were initiated against Respondent, in which
he was found guilty. Respondent was held not entitled to any payment
of salary, and allowances and other attendant benefits including
367 H
368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

.~
A increment for the period under suspension. He filed writ petition. High •
Court directed grant of pay and allowances for the period ofsuspension
on basis of Clause 22(8) of the "Manual on Disciplinary Action and
"
~-

Related Matters of UCO Bank." Hence the present appeal.
"
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
B
HELD: 1.1. Regulation 12 of the United Commercial Bank
(Conduct and Disciplinary appeal) Regulation, 1976 showed that
suspension can be directed under two circumstances. The first is where
a disciplinary proceeding against the concerned employee is
contemplated or is pending; and the second is where a case against him
c
in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or triaL
The respondent was placed under suspension under Regulation 12(i)(b).
[Para 8) (373-G-H; 374-A]
1.2. Regulation 15 deals with two types of situations; pay and
D allowances and treatment ofservice on termination or suspension. Sub-
~

Regulation (1) deals with the power ofcompetent authority on completion
of the departmental enquiry. In all other cases, except those covered
by Sub-Regulation (1 ), the competent authority has to direct as regards
the proportion of pay and allowances to be granted. A close reading of
E Sub-Regulation (1) of Regulation 15 would show that the same is
relatable to departmental proceedings. While other cases, meaning,
cases not covered by departmental proceedings, which obviously would
include the criminal trial are covered by sub-regulation (2). ..... ....... ___
[Paras 8 and 9] (374-A, B, DJ
F
2. Clause 22 of the Manual on Disciplinary Action and Related
Matters ofUCO Bank deals with two situations. One is full exoneration
in the departmental proceedings and other is acquittal by the court of
law of the charges levelled. Clause 22(8) specifically deals with acquittal
G by criminal court It does not exclude acquittal where accused has been
given benefit of doubt. Clause 22(8) provides guidelines for operating 1~

sub-Regulation (2) of Regulation 15. The High Court was, therefore,
justified in holding that because of Clause 22(8), the respondent was
entitled to all benefits to which he would have been normally entitled,
H
GENERAL MANAGER, UCO BANK v. M. 369
VENURANGANATH [PASAYAT,J.]
:::it had he been on duty. [Paras 9and13] (374-B, C; 375-B] A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5826 of
2007.

- From the Judgment and Order dated 17.06.2004 of the High Court
of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 685 of B
2004.
1
U.N. Bhachawat, B.L. Anand, Alok Bhachawat and Pratibha Jain
for the Appellants.
C.K. Sucharita for the Respondent. c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT,J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment of a Division Bench D
,
--1 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the writ appeal filed by the
respondent.
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The respondent, who, at the relevant point of time was Branch E
Manager of appellant No.1-Bank and was posted at Nellore in Andhra
Pradesh was charged and tried along with one Shrinivasulu s/o
Chenchurarnaiah for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 471 and
~ ., 477 oflndian Penal Code 1860 (in short the 'the IPC') and Section 5(2)
read with Section 5 (l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in F
short the 'Prevention of Corruption Act'). Both the accused persons were
tried in the Court of Special Judge for CBI cases. They were acquitted
by judgment dated 11.12.2002 giving them benefit of doubt. The
respondent was placed under suspension from 15.06.1988 till he was
reinstated on 04.05.1993. After his reinstatement, departmental G
proceedings were initiated. The same were questioned by a writ petition
being writ Petition No.15797 of 1994 which was allowed by learned
Single Judge. But in writ appeal No.884 of 1998, a Division Bench
directed dismissal of the writ petition. The departmental enquiry was
concluded on 29.02.2003. The respondent was found guilty. So far as H
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A payment of salary, allowances etc. are concerned, relevant portion of the
order read as follows:
"In the light of the above punishment the undersigned further directs
-
that Sri M. Venu Ranganath will not be entitled to any salary and
allowances and other attendant- benefits including increment for
B
the period spent by him under suspension, save and except the
Subsistence Allowance already paid to him during the said period." ~·

3. The respondent filed writ petition being Writ Petition No.11615
of 1994 claiming pay and allowances for the period of suspension which
c was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. Respondent filed Writ Appeal
No.685 of2004 which was allowed by the impugned order. It was inter-
alia held by the Division Bench that Clause-22 of the applicable Manual
i.e. A Manual on Disciplinary Action and Related Matters of UCO Bank
governed the case and not Regulation 15(2) of the United Commercial
D Bank (Conduct and Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976.
I-
4. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the Division
Bench was not justified in holding that Clause 22(8) of the Manual was
to operate and not Regulation 15(2) of the Regulation. It is stated that
E the Manual is nothing but guidelines inducted and at the most, may be
termed as Executive Instructions. The Regulations are statutory in mature.
5. It is pointed out that acquittal in a criminal case has nothing to do
with departmental proceedings and Jaw is clearly well settled.
Notwithstanding acquittal in a criminal case, departmental proceedings can ,.
F be initiated and/or continued.

6. In response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
the factual position shows that the only time respondent was placed under
suspension was because of the criminal case under Regulation 12(1)(b).
G \'en though departmental proceedings were initiated, the respondent was
E
never placed under suspension. According to her, the cas.e covered by
Regulation 15(2) relates to cases not covered by sub-Regulation (1).
7. There can be no doubt that criminal proceedings and departmental
proceedings operate in different fields. Even though the person may have
H
GENERAL MANAGER, UCO BANK v. M. 371
VENURANGANATH [PASAYAT, J.]
been acquitted in a criminal trial, there is no embargo on his being A
departmentally proceeded against. But the question here is slightly different.
The relevant provisions need to be quoted:
"11. Special procedure in certain cases:

Notwithstanding anything contained in regulation 6 or regulation 7 B
or regulation 8 the Disciplinary Authority may impose any of the
penalties specified in regulation 4 if the officer/employee has been
convicted on a criminal charge, or on the strength of facts or
conclusions arrived at by a judicial trial."
Regulation 12: Suspension:
c
(1) An officer employee may be placed under suspension by the
competent authority -
(a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated
D
or is pending; or
(b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is
under investigation, inquiry or trial.
(2) An officer employee shall be deemed to have been placed
E
under suspension by an order of the competent authority -
(a) with effect from the date of his detention, ifhe is detained in
custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a
..._ j period exceeding forty-eighty hours;
(b) with effect from the date of conviction, if in the event of a F
conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of
imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours and is not forthwith
dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to
such conviction.
G
Explanation :- The period of forty-eight hours referred to in clause
(b) of this sub-regulation shall be computed from the
commencement of the imprisonment after the conviction and for
this purpose, intermittent periods of imprisonment, if any, shall be
taken into account. H
372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A (3) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement _,

from service imposed upon an officer employee under suspension
is set aside in appeal or on review under these regulations and the
case is remitted for further inquiry or action or with any directions,
the order of his suspension shall be deemed to have continued in
B force on and from the date of the original order of dismissal,
removal or compulsory retirement and shall remain in force until
further orders.
(4) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsorily
retirement from service imposed upon an officer employee under
c suspension is set aside or declared or rendered void in
consequence of or by a decision of a court of law, and the
disciplinary authority, on consideration of the circumstances of the
case, decides to hold further inquiry against him on the allegations
on which the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory
D
retirement was originally imposed, the officer employee shall be ~

deemed to have been placed under suspension by the competent
authority from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal
or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under
suspension until further orders.
E
(5) (a) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been
made under this regulation shall continue to remain in force until
it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so.

F
(b) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been . ;.

made under this regulation may at any time be modified or
revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have
made the order."
"Regulation 15: Pay allowances and treatment of service on
G termination of suspension:
(1) Where the competent authority holds that the officer employee
has been fully exonerated or that the suspension was unjustifiable,
the officer employee concerned shall be granted the full pay to
which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended,
H
GENERAL MANAGER, UCO BANK v. M. 373
VENURANGANATH [PASAYAT, J.]
·~
~ together with any allowance of which he was in receipt immediately A
prior to his suspension, or may have been sanctioned subsequently
and made applicable to all officer employees.
(2) In all cases other than those referred to in sub-regulation (1 ),
the officer employee shall be granted such proportion of pay and
B
allowances as the Competent Authority may direct;
Provided that the payment of allowances under this sub-
regulation shall be subject to all other conditions to which such
allowances are admissible:
c
Provided further that the pay and allowances granted under this
sub-regulation shall not be less than the subsistence and other
allowances admissible under regulation 14.
3(a) In a case falling under sub-regulation (1) the period of absence
-i from duty shall, for all purposes, be treated as a period spent on D
duty;
(b) In a case falling under sub-regulation (2), the period of absence
from duty shall not be treated as a period spent on duty unless the
Competent Authority specifically directs, for reason to be recorded E
in writing, that it shall be so treated for any specific purpose."
Clause 22.8 ofthe Manual "Where a suspended officer employee
has been fully exonerated in the departmental enquiry or acquittal
~
by the court of law of the charges levelled against him the
competent authority holds that the suspension was unjustifiable, he F
would be entitled to all benefits to which he would have been
normally entitled, had he been on duty. However, the employee in
such a case would not be entitled to accumulate leave beyond the
permissible limit."
G
-! 8. A bare reading of Revelation 12 shows that suspension can be
directed under two circumstances. The first is where a disciplinary
proceeding against the concerned employee is contemplated or is pending;
and the second is where a case against him in respect of any criminal
offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. Undisputedly, the respondent H
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A was placed under suspension under Regulation 12(i)(b). Regulation 15
deals with two types of situations. As the heading itself shows, it relates
to pay and allowances and treatment of service on termination or
suspension. Sub-Regulation (1) deals with the power of competent
authority on completion of the departmental enquiry. All other cases,
B except those covered by Sub-Regulation (1 ), the competent authority has
to direct as regards the proportion of pay and allowances to be granted.
~·

9. Clause 22 of the Manual deals with two situations. One is full
exoneration in the departmental proceedings and other is acquittal by the
C court of law of the charges levelled. Clause 22(8) specifically deals with
acquittal by criminal court. It does not exclude acquittal where accused
has been given benefit of doubt. A close reading of Sub-Regulation (1)
of Regulation 15 would show that the same is relatable to departmental
proceedings. While other cases, meaning, cases not covered by
D departmental proceedings, which obviously would include the criminal trial
are covered by sub-regulation (2). 1-

10. At this juncture, it would also be relevant to take note of Clause
21 (9) of the Regulation. It deals with entitlements for benefits after acquittal
by a criminal court.
E
11. The same reads as follows:
"Where a suspended employee has been fully exonerated in the
departmental enquiry or honourably acquitted by the courts oflaw
of the charges levelled against him, he would be entitled to all
F benefits to which he would have been normally entitled, had he
been on duty. However, the employee in such a case would not
be entitled to all benefits to which he would have been normally
entitled, had he been on duty. However, the employee in such a
case would not be entitled to accumulate leave beyond the
G permissible limit. However, ifthe employee is acquitted by being
given the benefit of doubt he may be paid such portion of pay and
allowances as the management may deem proper and the period
of his suspension shall not be treated as period spent on duty unless
the management so direct."
H
GENERAL MANAGER, UCO BANK v. M. 375
VENURANGANATH [PASAYAT, J.]
12. It is to be noted that Regulation 21(9) does not relate to officers A
·- and the respondent herein was an officer and, therefore, Regulation 21
has no relevance as it covers only the award staff.
13. Clause 22(8) obviously is relatable to Clause 15(2), meaning
that it provides guidelines for operating sub-Regulation (2) of Regulation B
15. The High Court was, therefore, justified in holding that because of
Clause 22(8), the respondent was entitled to all benefits to which he would
+ have been normally entitled, had he been on duty. Therefore, no
inte1ference is called for.
14. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order C
as to costs.
B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.