Mohd. Saleem Khan vs U.P. Gramin Bank Nbcc Commercial Complex

: Vijay Kumar Srivastava : Avdhesh Shukla, Rajesh Kumar Singh Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite parties and the same is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties. the order impugned dated 20-09- The challenge 2025,whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of arrears of salary as well as the post retiral dues has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner's services were dispensed with under Regulation 30 (3) (a & b) & (4) of the Sarva U.P. Gramin Bank(Officers and Employees) Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulation,2010'). falsely roped the petitioner was Contention put for by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed on 01-09-1984 as Field Supervisor in Devipatan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Gonda and he kept on working with full satisfaction of his superiors and his work and conduct was always above board, during his period of working. He submitted that in a criminal subsequently, prosecution, wherein the chargesheet was submitted under section 7,13(2) readwith section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988(hereafter referred to as 'Act,1988') before the court of Special Judge, C.B.I.,whereafter, the trial was concluded and the petitioner was convicted under section 7 of the 'Act,1988' on 07-03- 2013 and as soon as he was convicted, the respondent-bank passed the order, invoking the provision of Regulation 30 (3) (a & b) (4) of the 'Regulations, 2010' on 25-03-2013. Further submission is that when this removal order was passed, that was challenged before the appellate authority i.e. before the Board of Directors of the bank 2 WRIA No. 13414 of 2025 under Regulation 49 of the Regulation, 2010,which was also rejected vide the order dated 28-06-2013. He submitted that the trial concluded and the final Judgment and Order was passed on 01-07- 2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 465 of 2013 and perusal of paragraph no. 67, it is apparent that after the discussion, the court has observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant and the impugned order passed by the learned trial court, convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under section 7 of the 'Act, 1988' was set aside. He argued that after the aforesaid order was passed, the petitioner moved a representation before the Chairman of the respondent-bank on 07-07-2025, which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 20-09-2025. He submitted that the ground for rejection is nonest as the provision of Regulation 30 (3) (a & b) and (4) of the 'Regulations, 2010', specifically provides that as soon the relative conviction is set aside by higher court and such officer is acquitted, he shall be reinstated in service of the bank. He added that the petitioner has been superannuated during the pendency of the criminal appeal and there is no fault on the part of the petitioner rather, the bare reading of provision of Regulation 30 (4) of the 'Regulations, 2010', it is evident that the petitioner is entitled for payment for arrears of salary as well as the post retiral dues, which have been declined by the respondent-bank vide the impugned order dated 20-09-2025, which is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, submission is that the order impugned dated 20-09-2025, may be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- bank has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the criminal prosecution was instituted against the petitioner and he was convicted in the year 2013 and thereafter he moved an appeal, which has been decided in his favour, but, during the pendency of the appeal, he has been superannuated and since the petitioner did not work after the year, 2013, therefore, he is not entitled for payment of salary as well as the retiral dues for the period, he did not work in the respondent-bank and therefore,submission is that the order impugned has rightly been passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner, which was raised vide representation dated 07-07- 2025. Upon considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of records, it is apparent that in the year, 2013, the petitioner was roped in a criminal prosecution under the offence for, which he has been chargesheeted under the 'Act, 1988'. The petitioner was convicted in the year,2013 by the learned trial court, which was challenged by the petitioner before this court by way of instituting Criminal Appeal No. 465 of 2013, which was finally decided on 01-07-2025, wherein, the petitioner has been acquitted honourably as the prosecution has been failed to adduce any evidence against him. 3 WRIA No. 13414 of 2025 When this court examines the impugned order dated 20-09-2025, it is apparent that the claim of the petitioner for payment of arrears of salary as well as retiral dues have been rejected on the pretext that the petitioner did not work in the department after the year, 2013, as he was under the criminal prosecution was running against him. This court finds from perusal of the provision of Regulation 30 (3) (a & b) and (4) of the 'Regulations, 2010' that as soon as such employee, whose relative conviction is set aside by the higher court, shall be entitled for reinstatement in service of the bank. Meaning thereby that as soon as, it is found that the conviction is set aside, the petitioner became entitled for reinstatement in service and he is also entitled for payment of salary as well as other post retiral dues. The authority of the respondent-bank, while deciding the issue vide order dated 20-09-2025, has taken the view against the provisions of Regulation 30 of the Regulation, 2010, and therefore, the same is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Consequently, the order impugned dated 20-09-2025 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the opposite party no. 2/Chairman, U.P. Gramin Bank, NBCC, Commercial Complex, Vardhan Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 07-07-2025, afresh, strictly adhering to the Regulation 30 (3) (a & b) and (4) of the 'Regulations, 2010' and the other relevant provisions of law, within period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. The present writ petition is hereby allowed accordingly. November 19, 2025 AKS (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

: Vijay Kumar Srivastava : Avdhesh Shukla, Rajesh Kumar Singh Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite parties and the same is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties. the order impugned dated 20-09- The challenge 2025,whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of arrears of salary as well as the post retiral dues has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner's services were dispensed with under Regulation 30 (3) (a & b) & (4) of the Sarva U.P. Gramin Bank(Officers and Employees) Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulation,2010'). falsely roped the petitioner was Contention put for by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed on 01-09-1984 as Field Supervisor in Devipatan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Gonda and he kept on working with full satisfaction of his superiors and his work and conduct was always above board, during his period of working. He submitted that in a criminal subsequently, prosecution, wherein the chargesheet was submitted under section 7,13(2) readwith section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988(hereafter referred to as 'Act,1988') before the court of Special Judge, C.B.I.,whereafter, the trial was concluded and the petitioner was convicted under section 7 of the 'Act,1988' on 07-03- 2013 and as soon as he was convicted, the respondent-bank passed the order, invoking the provision of Regulation 30 (3) (a & b) (4) of the 'Regulations, 2010' on 25-03-2013. Further submission is that when this removal order was passed, that was challenged before the appellate authority i.e. before the Board of Directors of the bank 2 WRIA No. 13414 of 2025 under Regulation 49 of the Regulation, 2010,which was also rejected vide the order dated 28-06-2013. He submitted that the trial concluded and the final Judgment and Order was passed on 01-07- 2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 465 of 2013 and perusal of paragraph no. 67, it is apparent that after the discussion, the court has observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant and the impugned order passed by the learned trial court, convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under section 7 of the 'Act, 1988' was set aside. He argued that after the aforesaid order was passed, the petitioner moved a representation before the Chairman of the respondent-bank on 07-07-2025, which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 20-09-2025. He submitted that the ground for rejection is nonest as the provision of Regulation 30 (3) (a & b) and (4) of the 'Regulations, 2010', specifically provides that as soon the relative conviction is set aside by higher court and such officer is acquitted, he shall be reinstated in service of the bank. He added that the petitioner has been superannuated during the pendency of the criminal appeal and there is no fault on the part of the petitioner rather, the bare reading of provision of Regulation 30 (4) of the 'Regulations, 2010', it is evident that the petitioner is entitled for payment for arrears of salary as well as the post retiral dues, which have been declined by the respondent-bank vide the impugned order dated 20-09-2025, which is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, submission is that the order impugned dated 20-09-2025, may be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- bank has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the criminal prosecution was instituted against the petitioner and he was convicted in the year 2013 and thereafter he moved an appeal, which has been decided in his favour, but, during the pendency of the appeal, he has been superannuated and since the petitioner did not work after the year, 2013, therefore, he is not entitled for payment of salary as well as the retiral dues for the period, he did not work in the respondent-bank and therefore,submission is that the order impugned has rightly been passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner, which was raised vide representation dated 07-07- 2025. Upon considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of records, it is apparent that in the year, 2013, the petitioner was roped in a criminal prosecution under the offence for, which he has been chargesheeted under the 'Act, 1988'. The petitioner was convicted in the year,2013 by the learned trial court, which was challenged by the petitioner before this court by way of instituting Criminal Appeal No. 465 of 2013, which was finally decided on 01-07-2025, wherein, the petitioner has been acquitted honourably as the prosecution has been failed to adduce any evidence against him. 3 WRIA No. 13414 of 2025 When this court examines the impugned order dated 20-09-2025, it is apparent that the claim of the petitioner for payment of arrears of salary as well as retiral dues have been rejected on the pretext that the petitioner did not work in the department after the year, 2013, as he was under the criminal prosecution was running against him. This court finds from perusal of the provision of Regulation 30 (3) (a & b) and (4) of the 'Regulations, 2010' that as soon as such employee, whose relative conviction is set aside by the higher court, shall be entitled for reinstatement in service of the bank. Meaning thereby that as soon as, it is found that the conviction is set aside, the petitioner became entitled for reinstatement in service and he is also entitled for payment of salary as well as other post retiral dues. The authority of the respondent-bank, while deciding the issue vide order dated 20-09-2025, has taken the view against the provisions of Regulation 30 of the Regulation, 2010, and therefore, the same is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Consequently, the order impugned dated 20-09-2025 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the opposite party no. 2/Chairman, U.P. Gramin Bank, NBCC, Commercial Complex, Vardhan Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 07-07-2025, afresh, strictly adhering to the Regulation 30 (3) (a & b) and (4) of the 'Regulations, 2010' and the other relevant provisions of law, within period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. The present writ petition is hereby allowed accordingly. November 19, 2025 AKS (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench