JAYASHREE VANI Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner joined the services of Respondent-Bank as a Clerk on 12.8.1984. She was posed to work as Chief Cashier at the Bangalore Main Branch of the bank on 29.1.2004. However, in the month of April 2004, it was found that there was shortage of cash to the tune of Rs. 7,70,000/-. The same was intimated by the Petitioner to the bank and consequently, the bank lodged the complaint in Upparpet Police Station, Bangalore, on 4.4.2004. On the next day i.e., on 5.4.2004, the Petitioner was placed under suspension. The police have registered the complaint and the matter was investigated by the police. Simultaneously, charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority after issuing Memorandum calling for the explanation of the Petitioner. An Enquiry officer was appointed in the month of July 2004. On 1.9.2004, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 34849/2004. This Court stayed the disciplinary enquiry proceedings for a period of four weeks initially, which was continued from time to time till the disposal of the writ petition on 16.9.2009. On 16.9.2009, the aforementioned writ petition came to be allowed by holding that the enquiry proceedings cannot be proceeded with during the pendency of criminal trial and while setting aside the order impugned, this Court restrained the Respondent from continuing with the disciplinary proceedings. The order passed in the writ petition was questioned by the Bank in Writ Appeal No. 276/2010 (S-DE). The said Writ Appeal came to be allowed on 17.8.2010 and consequently, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner was dismissed, holding that the enquiry proceedings during the pendency of criminal trial can go on. The order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal is confirmed by the Apex Court.

(2.) Petitioner made a representation to the bank on 17.8.2010 relying upon the Bipartite Settlement claiming full salary and allowances as subsistence allowance during the period of suspension.

(3.) The competent authority rejected the representation of the Petitioner for grant of full pay and allowances during the period of suspension on 5.10.2010 as per Annexure-'K' on the ground that the enquiry is delayed on account of the Petitioner and the reason for delay is clearly attributable to her action only. According to the Bank, the action of the Petitioner in approaching this Court and getting the order of stay prohibits her from getting full salary and allowances as subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. The order at Annexure-'K' is called in question in this writ petition.