Petitioner sought reinstatement after criminal conviction was partially set aside. Bank rejected claim as petitioner was convicted under IPC 411. Petitioner's writ petition for non-decision on representation was dismissed.
None. Petitioner's writ petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1687
Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5492 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Shukla Respondent :- District Magistrate Sultanpur And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava,Udai Pratap Pal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prashant Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
The petitioner while working as cashier in the Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank, Rae Bareli was charged with an offence under Sections 457, 380 and 411 I.P.C. and was convicted in the same by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. However, the appeal, Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2017, filed by the petitioner against the judgement of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was partly allowed and the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 457/380 I.P.C. was set aside while conviction and imprisonment under Section 411 I.P.C. was afÏrmed. During the pendency of the aforesaid criminal cases, the petitioner was dismissed from service of the Bank.
It be noted that the offences were registered against the petitioner for having committed embezzlement while acting as cashier in the Bank.
After the order dated 10.1.2020 passed by the appellate court, i.e., Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, DistrictSultanpur partly allowing the appeal of the petitioner, the petitioner filed a representation before the Bank seeking reinstatement pleading that he had been acquitted of the charges.
The grievance of the petitioner is that no decision is being taken by the competent authority on the aforesaid representation of the petitioner.
Shri Prashant Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, representing the Bank has obtained instructions and has handed over a copy of the same to the Court, which is taken on record.
On the basis of his instructions, Shri Prashant Kumar Srivastava, Advocate states that the subsequent representations made by the petitioner have been dismissed by the Bank and the petitioner has been informed about the decision of the Bank.
The information has been given to the petitioner vide letter dated 16.2.2021. The Bank has rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that the claim of the petitioner that he had been completely convicted from the criminal charges is wrong.
In view of the aforesaid, the petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.1.2024 Anurag/-
Digitally signed by :- ANURAG KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Ashok Kumar Shukla
District Magistrate Sultanpur And Anr.
Salil Kumar Rai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
