Madras High Court
L.Kumar vs General Manager (Hr & Ga) on 31 January, 2025
W.P.No.33052 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 18.10.2025 Pronounced on : 31.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
W.P.No.33052 of 2014
L.Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
General Manager (HR & GA),
State Bank of Mysore,
Industrial Relations Department,
Head Office, Bangalore – 9. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the orders of the
respondent in IRD/ID/Legal dated 29.10.2013, quash the same and
consequently direct the respondent to reimburse to the petitioner a sum of
Rs.3,79,300/- as legal and financial support as per Circular No.120/2011-12
dated 07.02.2012.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Vasantha Kumar
for M/s.C.Vigneswaran
For Respondent : Mr.C.Mohan,
M/s.A.Rexy Josephine Mary
for M/s.King & Partridge
Page 1 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.33052 of 2014
ORDER
The short question that arise for consideration in this writ petition is
whether the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of reimbursement of the legal
expenses incurred by him in connection with defending criminal cases vide
Spl.CC.No.195 of 2000 on the file of the Court of XXI Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore (CCC.4),
Spl.CC.No.162 of 2001 and Spl.CC.No.204 of 2011 on the file of the Court
of XLVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI
Cases (CCH-47) at Bangalore City in terms of the Staff Circular
No.120/2011-12 dated 07.02.2012 or not?
2. The brief facts that are relevant for better appreciation and
disposal of the matter are as under:-
2.1. The petitioner, while working as Officer in Middle
Management Grade-II, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings resulting
in imposing the punishment of 'removal from service' under Regulation 67(i)
of the State Bank of Mysore Officers' Service Regulations, 1979, (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Regulations, 1979' for short) by an order dated 09.07.2003,
passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Aggrieved by the said order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
09.07.2003, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority viz.,
the Chief General Manager and the said Appellate Authority, after having
examined the matter in detail, came to the conclusion that there was no
malafides on the part of the petitioner was proved and accordingly, modified
the punishment of 'removal from service' imposed by the Disciplinary
Authority to that of 'reduction to a lower grade i.e., JMGS-I at the minimum
scale in terms of Regulation 67(g) of the Regulations, 1979'. It was aggrieved
by the said order, the petitioner filed a review petition unsuccesfully and
thereafter, approached this court by filing W.P.No.27016 of 2008 and the said
writ petition was allowed by this court to the limited extent of restricting the
punishment of reduction in the cadre and the punishment imposed in respect
of fixing the minimum time scale of pay was set aside.
2.2. Simultaneously, while initiating the disciplinary proceedings,
criminal proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner by CBI in
Spl.CC.No.195 of 2000, Spl.CC.No.162 of 2001 and Spl.CC.No.204 of
2011. In all the three cases, the petitioner was acquitted by the judgments
dated 24.11.2007 and 04.10.2012. While the said criminal proceedings were
pending, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2009 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
retired from service. It was thereafter, on having been acquitted in all the
three criminal cases, the petitioner made a claim for reimbursement of the
legal expenses incurred by him in connection with the said criminal
proceedings by submitting a representation dated 12.10.2012 by placing
reliance on the Staff Circular dated 07.02.2012. The respondent, on having
considered the said request of the petitioner, rejected the claim made by the
petitioner by passing the impugned order dated 29.10.2013, on the ground
that the prosecution that has been initiated against the petitioner cannot be
said to be for the reason arising out of bonafide execution of the bank's work
by the petitioner.
2.3. For arriving at such conclusion, the bank has assigned the
following reasons:-
“(i) The Hon'ble Court in CC
No.195/2000 at para 57 has held that the
evidence relating to criminal misconduct for
which you have been charges through may come
within the purview of taking departmental action,
the evidence led by the prosecution is insufficient
to hold that the alleged acts amount to criminal
misconduct for want of mensrea required to be
established in this regard. The Hon'ble court in
CC No.203/2011 has acquitted you since, the
court found that the evidence produced is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sufficient to prove the case beyond all reasonable
doubt.
(ii) The Bank has given sanction for
prosecution against you after considering the
investigation report submitted by the CBI
(iii) The Bank has also conducted
domestic enquiry. The charges against you in
domestic enquiry have not been disproved and
many of the acts of misconduct which also relate
to proceedings before the Hon'ble Court have
been held to be proved and consequently, the
punishment has been imposed in the enquiry
which has attained finality.”
3. Heard Mr.P.Vasantha Kumar for Mr.C.Vigneswaran, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.Mohan and M/s.A.Rexy Josephine Mary
for M/s.King & Partridge, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. In order to answer the question framed at the beginning of this
order, firstly, the three reason assigned by the respondent to arrive at a
conclusion that the petitioner was subjected to prosecution not because of the
bonafide execution of bank's work is sustainable or not is to be seen.
Secondly, whether the reasons assigned in the impugned order would dis-
entitle the petitioner for the reimbursement claimed in terms of the Staff
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Circular dated 07.02.2012 or not, and such reasons are sustainable or not is to
be seen.
5. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the scope and ambit of
the Staff Circular dated 07.02.2012. The said Staff Circular dated 07.02.2012
reads as under:-
“It has been decided to extend legal
and financial support to officers / employees
who are required to defend themselves against
legal action initiated by Government Agencies
such as CBI/CVC/Police etc., in the court of
law against cases arising out of bonafide
execution of bank's work. They may be
reimbursed legal expenses incurred by them to
a reasonable extent based on the following
conditions:
(i) the Bank has examined the matter
and decided not to initiate any disciplinary
proceedings against the officer/employee; or
(ii) the cases where disciplinary
proceedings initiated by the Bank in respect of
acts of other connected acts have concluded
with exoneration, administrative warning or
penalty of censure.
However:
(i) cases, where disciplinary
proceedings are contemplated/ pending or
have been initiated will not be considered for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
reimbursement until conclusion of the
disciplinary proceedings .
(ii)cases, where the disciplinary
proceedings have been concluded with lower
punishment than dismissal/termination/
removal but higher than administrative
warning, the reimbursement of legal expenses
for defending cases initiated by CBI/CVC/
Police etc. will be considered only if the
officer/employee is acquitted in the Court of
Law.
(iii) in case the officer/employee has
superannuated and was being reimbursed
expenses for defending the legal case initiated
by CBI/CVC/Police prior to the retirement, the
reimbursement may continue after retirement
also.
(iv) expenses will be reimbursed only
to a reasonable extent at the discretion of the
Bank.
(v) in case the expenses are reimbursed
by the bank and later the officer/employee is
found guilty and punished by the outside
agency, the expenses reimbursed to him/her
will be recovered by the Bank. In this regard
an undertaking to the effect will be taken from
the officer/employee while reimbursing the
expenses.”
6. From the perusal of the above circular, it is evident that the
benefit of the said circular is available only in respect of the cases arising out
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of bonafide execution of bank's work by the officers. Hence, in order to claim
the benefit under various clauses of the said circular, one has to satisfy that
the officer has been discharging his duties bonafide, but the same resulted in
initiation of the criminal proceedings against him. It is an admitted fact that
the petitioner was also subjected to disciplinary proceedings on the very same
issues which are the subject matter of the criminal proceedings.
7. As already noted above, the petitioner was initially imposed with
the punishment of 'removal from service', but the said punishment was
interfered with by the Appellate Authority, on coming to the conclusion that
no malafide on the part of the petitioner was proved. To this effect, there is a
categorical finding in the order dated 18.08.2004 passed by the Appellate
Authority. The said finding has attained finality. Once it is found that there
was no malafide on the part of the petitioner, though his actions amount to
misconduct in terms of the conduct regulations of the respondent Bank, it has
to be concluded that the officer has acted in a bonafide manner. As the said
findings recorded by the Appellate Authority has attained finality, it is bound
to be held that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of Staff Circular dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
07.02.2012, however, subject to the satisfying various clauses enumerated in
the said circular.
8. Further, the benefit of the circular is made available mainly under
two circumstances i.e., (i) and (ii) and further made it available under fine
extended circumstances i.e., (i) to (vi)
9. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is
entitled for the benefit of exetended Clause No.(ii). The said clause applies to
the cases where a lesser punishment than a dismissal/ termination/ removal,
but higher than a administrative warning was imposed and enable the officers
to claim for reimbursement of the legal expenses for defending the cases
initiated by the CBI/ CBC/ Police etc., only in case if the said officer is
acquitted in the court of law. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner was
acquitted in all the three criminal cases that were initiated against him. The
punishment that was imposed in the disciplinary proceedings against the
petitioner, as modified by the Appellate Authority is lower than the dismissal/
termination/ removal and higher than the administrative warning. Therefore,
the petitioner would fall for consideration under the said clause.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. While considering the claim of the petitioner under the said
clause, whether it is open for the respondent to see the reasons for acquittal or
the grounds on which the petitioner was acquitted or not is yet another issue
that needs to be answered. A plain reading of the said extended clause (ii)
does not provide any such discretion to the respondent. Once an officer was
imposed with a lower punishment than the 'removal from service' and higher
than the administrative warning and acquitted by the court of law, then he
would automatically fall under the said clause and become entitled for
reimbursement of the legal expenses in terms of the said circular, however,
subject to the restrictions and limitations that are provided under the other
clauses.
11. In the instant case, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on
three grounds. Firstly on the ground that the petitioner was acquitted for want
of sufficient evidence and on the ground of benefit of doubt etc., As already
noted above, such a plea is not available to the respondent to deny the benefit
of the Staff Circular dated 07.02.2012 to the petitioner. The second round is
that the bank has given sanction for prosecution against the petitioner
considering the investigation report submitted by the CBI. Every prosecution
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
would take place only after granting sanction by the Bank and it is after the
prosecution, the petitioner stood acquitted and the benefit of the Staff
Circular dated 07.02.2012 is available only on acquittal and therefore, the
prior sanction granted by the Bank for prosecution of the petitioner is totally
an irrelevant factor, while considering the claim of the petitioner for
extending the benefit of Staff Circular dated 07.02.2012. The third ground is
that the petitioner was also subjected to disciplinary proceedings and he was
imposed with a punishment and the said punishment has attained finality.
This is also totally an irrelevant consideration. The benefit of the Staff
Circular dated 07.02.2012 is specifically made available to the officers who
suffered punishment in the disciplinary proceedings but acquitted in the
criminal proceedings. Therefore, mere imposition of punishment in the
disciplinary proceedings can never be a ground to deny the benefit of the
Staff Circular dated 07.02.2012. Therefore, all the three grounds on which the
claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent are wholly
unsustainable and are outside the scope of Staff Circular dated 07.02.2012.
12. The reliance placed by Mr.C.Mohan, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent Bank on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
case of “Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi -vs- Bhopal
Singh Panchal” reported in 1994 (1) SCC 541 has absolutely no application
to the case on hand. That is the case where the right of the bank to decide
about the entitlement of an employee who was suspended from service for
balance wages for the suspension period was under consideration in the
context of an order passed by the competent court directing for payment of
full backwages from the date of dismissal from service till the date of
reinstatement. Therefore, the entitlement of the delinquent employee therein
for payment of balance wages for the suspension period was fully within the
scope of the employer therein and under those circumstances, the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that the employer Bank will have discretion in the matter of
deciding the entitlement or dis-entitlement of the delinquent employee for
such backwages.
13. But, in the instant case, the Staff Circular dated 07.02.2012
itself was issued to meet certain peculiar circumstances, wherein an officer
was subjected to disciplinary proceedings as well as the criminal proceedings.
However, only in case, if such prosecution was initiated because of the
bonafide discharge of his duties in the Bank.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14. As already noted above, the Appellate Authority, while
modifying the punishment of 'removal from service' had categorically
recorded the finding that no malafides on the part of the petitioner was
proved in the disciplinary proceedings. Admittedly, there is no finding
recorded in the criminal proceedings to the effect that the petitioner has not
acted bonafide. Once it is held that there was no malafide on the part of the
petitioner, then the entire action of the respondent which resulted in initiation
of disciplinary proceedings as well as criminal proceedings is bound to be
treated as the result of bonafide discharge of the duties of the petitioner.
15. In the light of the above, the impugned order bearing
IRD/ID/Legal dated 29.10.2013 cannot be sustained and accordingly, the
same is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for
considering the claim of the petitioner afresh strictly in terms of the Staff
Circular dated 07.02.2012 and for passing appropriate orders thereon duly
taking into consideration the conclusion arrived at by this court. The
respondent is further directed to pass consequential orders by duly affording
an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
possible, at any rate within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order.
16. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated
above. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
31.01.2025
skr
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
skr
To
General Manager (HR & GA),
State Bank of Mysore,
Industrial Relations Department,
Head Office, Bangalore – 9.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Pre-Delivery Order made in
31.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
