Samsul Islam vs The Uco Bank And 7 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4698 Gua

                                                                  Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010021882015




                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                          Case No. : WP(C)/5793/2015

         SAMSUL ISLAM
         S/O LT. ABDUR RAHIM, R/O GRAHAM BAZAR, DIBRUGARH, P.O. and DIST-
         DIBRUGARH, ASSAM



         VERSUS

         THE UCO BANK and 7 ORS
         REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN and MAMAGING DIRECTOR, UCO BANK, HEAD
         OFFICE, 10 B.T.M. SARANI, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL-01

         2:THE GENERAL MANAGER
          UCO BANK
          PERSONAL DEPTT.
          12 OLD COURT HOUSE STREET
          KOLKATA
         WEST BENGAL-1

         3:THE DY. GENERAL MANAGER
          UCO BANK
          PERSONAL DEPTT.
          12 OLD COURT HOUSE STREET
          KOLKATA
         WEST BENGAL-1

         4:THE CIRCLE HEAD
          N.E.CIRCLE
          UCO BANK
          SILPUKHURI
          P.O. SILPUKHURI
          GHY-3
         ASSAM
                                                      Page No.# 2/4

            5:THE ZONAL MANAGER
             UCO BANK
             SILPUKHURI
             P.O. SILPUKHURI
             GHY-3
            ASSAM

            6:ABANI KR. BARUAH
             MANAGER
             UCO BANK
             DIBRUGARH BRANCH
             R.K. BORDOLOI PATH
            THANACHARALI
             P.O. DIBRUGARH
            ASSAM
             PIN-786001

            7:GOBIND RAJKHOWA
             CHIEF MANAGER
             UCO BANK
             BHUBENESWAR ZONAL OFFICE
             UCO BANK BUILDING
             3RD FLOOR
             C-2
            ASHOK NAGAR
             UNIT-II
             BHUBENESWAR-09

            8:F.H. CHOUDHURY
             CHIEF MANAGER
             UCO BANK
             HALDIA BRANCH
             SUPER MARKET BUILDING
             P.O. DURGACHAK PURBO MEDINIPUR
            WEST BENGAL
             PIN-72160

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR.R ISLAM

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.R K DUTTAR-1 to 5
                                                                         Page No.# 3/4


                                BEFORE
           HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

                                       ORDER

Date : 29.11.2022

Heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned senior counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was informed by the communication dated 02.02.1999 of the Assistant General Manager (Personnel), UCO Bank, that the competent authority had decided to promote him from Junior Management Grade Scale-I to Middle Management Grade Scale-II, notionally with effect from 19.12.1997. But, however, the emoluments would be entitled to the petitioner on and from 01.02.1999. The communication further provided that the promotion is made subject to the decisions and orders in various writ petitions pending in different courts in India.

3. It is stated that no such writ petitions by the petitioner are pending and accordingly, it has to be understood that such writ petitions refer petitions filed by somebody else and in what manner the issue involved in such writ petitions have any bearing in this present petition is also not very clear. However, it is stated that the petitioner was subjected to a criminal proceeding wherein, he was acquitted by an order of the Special Judge, CBI, Assam. The order dated 25.05.2015 of the Dy. General Manager (HRM) in the aforesaid circumstance providing that the petitioner would be allowed the monetary benefits of the promotion referred above from 22.05.2015 is also assailed in this writ petition.

4. Mr. U.K. Nair, learned senior counsel for the petitioner categorically submits that the monetary gain of the promotion had been given to the petitioner by the order impugned from 22.05.2015 by taking note of the criminal proceeding that was pending against the petitioner. In other words, it was a case of the Page No.# 4/4

respondents that his earlier promotion was kept under the sealed cover method and acted upon after the exoneration in the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. In the circumstance, we have to understand that the respondents had acted pursuant to the provision of law laid down in paragraph 26 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. K.V. Jankiraman & Ors., reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109. In paragraph 26 of the judgment in K.V. Jankiraman (supra), the proposition of law laid down is that in the event an employee is subjected to the sealed cover method and subsequently exonerated of all the charges, it will be a discretion on the part of the departmental authorities to take a decision as to what monetary benefits would be paid for the period between the date of notional promotion as provided in the sealed cover decision and the date on which the petitioner would be actually promoted.

6. Mr. U.K. Nair, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the discretion vested upon the authorities under paragraph 26 of the judgment in K.V. Jankiraman (supra) had not been properly exercised in the present matter. The respondents on the next date to produce the records of the proceeding leading to the impugned order dated 22.05.2015, which may contain the reason as to in what manner the discretion was exercised.

7. List on 02.12.2022.

8. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. H. Betala, learned counsel.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant