[2025:RJ-JP:32520] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6405/2009 Ram Kumar Singh Meel, Son of Shri Govinda Ram Jat, aged about 63 years, R/o F-4-E, Sunder Vihar, Ram Nagar Extension, Sodala, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The General Manager, State Bank of India, Region-Ist, Jaipur. 2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devendra Kumar Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akshansh Singhal Mr. Satish Kumar Singhal for S.B.I. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 19/08/2025 1. By way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction against the respondents to make payment of remaining salary for suspension period commencing from 17.09.1988 to 23.12.1991 along with other consequential benefits and interest. 2. It is stated that on account of lodging of one criminal case under Sections 332, 353 & 452 IPC, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 17.09.1988. The petitioner has undergone the trial in the criminal case and was ultimately acquitted vide judgment dated 21.06.2005. 3. In the meanwhile, the suspension was revoked on 23.12.1991 and the petitioner was taken back in service. After [2025:RJ-JP:32520] (2 of 4) [CW-6405/2009] attaining age of superannuation, the petitioner has retired w.e.f., 31.07.2004. 4. Grievance of the petitioner is that although he has been granted other terminal benefits after his retirement yet the remaining salary of suspension period, after excluding the subsistence allowances has not been paid to him, nor was he granted any annual grade increment during the suspension period. 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no order to conclude the disciplinary inquiry and to withhold any increment of the petitioner, or to forfeit the benefits of suspension period. Thus, a direction has been sought against the respondents to release the aforesaid benefits. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset submitted that the petitioner has not come out with clean hands and has concealed the fact, which is otherwise having material bearing over the merits of the case. He submits that the departmental inquiry against the petitioner was concluded and penalty of withholding three grade increments was imposed upon the petitioner, therefore, the respondents are quite justified in not granting the benefits as claimed by him in the writ petition. He insisted that only on the account of grave concealment by the petitioner, the writ petition filed by him is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and examined the record. 8. It reflects from the order dated 26.09.2023 passed by this Court in the present writ petition that the learned counsel for the respondents was directed to place on record a copy of the [2025:RJ-JP:32520] (3 of 4) [CW-6405/2009] order issued by the concerned authority by which a decision was taken not to grant pay and salary for the suspension period of the petitioner. However, nothing was placed on record. On 25.09.2024, statement was made by learned counsel for the respondents that pursuant to order dated 26.09.2023 passed by this Court, he has already submitted the required documents. He was directed to supply a copy of the same in the office of counsel for the petitioner. Office was also directed to place the documents, if any, submitted by learned counsel for the respondents. However, no such documents was found on record. 9. Instead thereof, one affidavit sworn in by one Sh. Ashok Kumar Meena, Chief Manager, State Bank of India was filed on behalf of the respondents in which also a vague statement has been made that penalty order was passed against the petitioner but record was not available with the respondent-Bank. However, nothing has been mentioned in the affidavit as to in what manner the deponent Sh. Ashok Kumar Meena has acquired knowledge with regard to any such penalty order. 10. Even the details, i.e., the date of passing of penalty order and the authority who has passed the same has not been supplied. Under these circumstances, there is nothing on record to enable this Court to believe upon the version of respondent-bank that at any point of time the petitioner was ever penalized in any disciplinary proceedings. 11. Thus, the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents with regard to suppression and concealment of material facts is not tenable and is hereby rejected. [2025:RJ-JP:32520] (4 of 4) [CW-6405/2009] 12. In the light of facts and circumstances mentioned herein above, where the respondent-Bank has utterly failed to place any penalty order on record, it would be in the interest of justice to believe upon the version of the petitioner that he was never penalized in any disciplinary proceedings. Even otherwise, since the statement with regard to passing of penalty order has been made by the respondent-Bank and as per the provisions of Evidence Act, the burden to prove any special fact lies upon the person who has made such assertion, therefore, on account of failure on the part of respondent-Bank in supporting their contention with documentary evidence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The respondent-Bank is hereby directed to make payment of remaining salary during the suspension period to the petitioner, excluding the subsistence allowances already received by the petitioner, commencing from 17.09.1988 to 23.12.1991 as well as to grant the annual grade increments which had accrued during the aforesaid period. Consequential benefits along with arrears of due amount be also paid to the petitioner within a period of three months along with interest @ 6 per cent per annum. 14. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/19